Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CASDA MCP Server

CASDA MCP Server

by jbwod
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Search CASDA projects

casda_search_projects
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search CASDA projects using exact filters for short name or project code, with cursor pagination for browsing results.

Instructions

Search casda.project with optional exact filters and cursor pagination.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "casda_search_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cursorNoOpaque cursor from a previous projects page.
page_sizeNoPage size for bounded project listing.
short_nameNoExact project short name / ObsCore collection label.
project_codeNoExact OPAL/CASDA project code, such as AS102.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
projectsNo
paginationNo
provenanceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc. but the description adds 'cursor pagination' and 'optional exact filters', which are behavioral details beyond annotations. Contradiction is false.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Single sentence, 10 words, front-loaded with key concepts. Efficient but could briefly mention when to use exact filters or the role of cursor.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description explains search with filters and pagination. Some missing context on cursor opaqueness, but overall complete for a search tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning, summarizing filters and pagination, which is adequate but not adding significant value.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool searches 'casda.project' with filters and cursor pagination. The verb 'Search' and resource are specific, but it does not distinguish from sibling search tools like casda_search_catalogue.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as casda_get_project. Does not specify when to prefer exact filters or when not to use it.

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