Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CASDA MCP Server

CASDA MCP Server

by jbwod
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get CASDA TAP job

casda_get_tap_job
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the current status of an asynchronous TAP job using its job identifier from this server.

Instructions

Perform one uncached status check for a TAP job created by this server.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "casda_get_tap_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
request_idYesAsync TAP job identifier returned by this server.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
statusYes
resultsNo
provenanceNo
request_idYes
expiry_timeNo
failure_reasonNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the key behavior 'uncached status check', which is not in annotations, providing additional context about network call freshness.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, concise and to the point, with zero wasted words. Includes essential qualifiers 'uncached' and 'one'.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple status-check tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and key behavioral trait (uncached). No missing context for agent invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has one parameter (request_id) with a clear description. Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs a status check on a TAP job, specifying 'uncached' and 'one' check, and identifies the job as created by this server. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like casda_submit_tap_query, casda_get_tap_results, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for a fresh status check but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like casda_get_tap_results or casda_abort_tap_job. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools