Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ApexMCP

ApexMCP

by mad-science-lab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

apex_system_info

Retrieve Neptune Apex controller identity, firmware, module status, feed state, power-failure times, and network quality to monitor system health and connectivity.

Instructions

Controller identity, firmware, modules, feed state, power-failure times, network quality.

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_system_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists data categories but does not state that this is a read-only snapshot, whether it has side effects, whether authentication or permissions are required, or any rate-limit/caching behavior.

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 fragment with no wasted words, and the most important data categories are front-loaded. Its structure is weak because it is an unpunctuated noun list rather than a framed statement of purpose.

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 (zero parameters) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, it leaves a real gap by not clarifying how this system snapshot relates to the more targeted sibling tools, which could cause selection ambiguity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 enumerates the specific data returned (controller identity, firmware, modules, feed state, power-failure times, network quality), making the resource clear. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and does not distinguish this tool from overlapping siblings like apex_feed_status, apex_module_health, or apex_power_summary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many apex_* siblings that also return feed status, module health, and power information. The description gives no context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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