Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
otie-mcp

otie-mcp

by koji
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

opentrons_upload_and_run

Validate a Python protocol, upload it, generate a run, and start execution on Opentrons robots, blocking when hardware is unavailable.

Instructions

プロトコル検証・アップロード・Run生成・実行開始を一括で行います。ハードウェア不足時はブロックします。

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": {
      "protocolContent": "<protocolContent>"
    },
    "name": "opentrons_upload_and_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameNo保存ファイル名
protocolContentYesPythonプロトコルコード

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description adds a specific behavioral note: 'ハードウェア不足時はブロックします' (blocks when hardware is insufficient) and mentions '実行開始' (execution start), disclosing the side effect. However, it does not cover error handling, permission needs, or reversibility, leaving the safety profile partially unexplored.

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?

Two sentences, clearly front-loaded with the action list, followed by a behavior note. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a moderate-complexity multi-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main flow and a key blocking condition but omits details about expected output (e.g., run ID), prerequisites, or failure modes. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters (protocolContent and filename) with 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 explicitly lists the sequence of actions (protocol validation, upload, run generation, and execution start) using the verb '行います' (performs), clearly distinguishing this as the combined all-in-one tool versus sibling tools like opentrons_validate_protocol.

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 this is the tool for the full workflow ('一括で行います'), but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of opentrons_validate_protocol or opentrons_control_run, nor any exclusions.

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