nmos-mcp

query_resources

Query a resource collection using IS-04 filters, matching by label or RQL expression.

Instructions

Query a resource collection with an IS-04 filter.

Pass label for a simple label match, or rql for an IS-04 RQL expression (e.g. eq(transport,urn:x-nmos:transport:rtp.mcast)).

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>"
    },
    "name": "query_resources"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rql`	No
`kind`	Yes
`label`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the burden of disclosure. It only implies a read operation ('query') without stating idempotency, safety, or side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

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?

Given no annotations and a required parameter 'kind' left unexplained, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on return format, pagination, or RQL behavior, though an output schema exists.

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 description adds value by explaining label and rql with an example, but it omits the required 'kind' parameter, which is not described anywhere. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more fully.

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 states the tool queries a resource collection using an IS-04 filter, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_* (*list all*) and get_resource (*single resource*).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains how to use the two optional parameters (label for simple match, rql for RQL expressions) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_devices.

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