designsafe-mcp

by kks32

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

get_results

List job archive files or return a small text file's content from DesignSafe by UUID and optional path.

Instructions

List the job archive, or return a small text file's content.

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": {
      "uuid": "<uuid>"
    },
    "name": "get_results"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No
`uuid`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It hints at read-only behavior ('List', 'return') and a constraint ('small text file'), but it does not disclose permissions, behavior for larger files, error conditions, or the output format. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, the lack of structure (e.g., separating the two modes) contributes to ambiguity, so it loses a point.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations, no parameter explanations, and a dual-purpose description, the tool is not adequately specified. An output schema exists but does not compensate for missing input semantics and usage context. The agent cannot reliably decide when to call this tool or how to construct the call.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has two parameters (path and uuid) with zero description coverage. The description does not explain what either parameter means, how they relate to the two operations, or which is required for which mode. The agent has no way to correctly populate the parameters.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states two possible actions: 'List the job archive' and 'return a small text file's content.' However, 'job archive' is ambiguous and the dual-purpose nature is not clearly separated. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_my_jobs or job_status, making the purpose only partially clear.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without any context on the appropriate usage scenario.

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