Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ApexMCP

ApexMCP

by mad-science-lab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

apex_get_probes

Retrieve current aquarium probe readings from Neptune Apex controllers, optionally filtered by probe type such as temperature, pH, amps, power, volts, digital, or conductivity.

Instructions

Current readings. probe_type filters, e.g. Temp, pH, Amps, pwr, volts, digital, Cond.

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": "apex_get_probes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
probe_typeNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, or what the readings look like. An output schema exists, which removes some need to describe return format, but the definition still leaves the operation's behavior largely undisclosed.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The terseness borders on under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param) and has an output schema, so the bar is lower, but an agent still lacks the key fact of what a "reading" contains and how this differs from probe_history/stats. The filter examples are the description's main contribution.

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 0% — the schema offers only an untyped string with a null default — so the description must compensate. It does partially by listing example filter values (Temp, pH, Amps, pwr, volts, digital, Cond), which is genuinely useful, but it doesn't say whether matching is case-sensitive, partial, or that omitting it returns all probes.

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?

"Current readings" states a snapshot of readings but never names the resource (probes) except via the tool name, and the phrase is telegraphic rather than a clear verb+resource. It weakly distinguishes from apex_probe_history/apex_probe_stats by saying "current," but that contrast is left implicit.

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 when-to-use guidance and no references to sibling tools such as apex_probe_history (time series) or apex_water_parameters, even though those are the obvious alternatives. The only usage hint is that probe_type can be used to filter, with example values.

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