Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
REW MCP Server

REW MCP Server

by manuaero
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

rew_status

Read-only

Verify a live Room EQ Wizard connection and report API coverage and current operating mode before running measurements or configuration tasks.

Instructions

Check live REW connection, API coverage and operating mode.

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": "rew_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare the tool is read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful scope beyond that by saying it checks live connection, API coverage, and operating mode, which tells the agent what kind of status is returned. It does not describe output format or failure behavior, so it is not a 5.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence of about ten words with no filler. Every phrase adds distinct information: live connection, API coverage, and operating mode.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is appropriately complete: it names the three things checked. It could be slightly richer by clarifying what 'API coverage' or 'operating mode' means, but nothing critical is missing.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description neither needs nor adds parameter semantics, and there are no undocumented parameters to compensate for.

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 states a specific action ('Check') and three concrete things checked: live REW connection, API coverage, and operating mode. It is clear what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as rew_describe_api or rew_call_api, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is useful before relying on REW or to verify connectivity and API availability. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as rew_describe_api for API details.

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