Skip to main content
Glama
mp-juns

universal-research-mcp

by mp-juns
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

research_semantic_setup_plan

Generate an actionable environment setup plan for a specified model revision using a full immutable commit SHA, without network or execution, ensuring reproducible research conditions.

Instructions

Plan without network or execution; revision must be a full immutable commit SHA.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deviceNoauto
model_idYes
revisionYes
auto_refreshNo
reuse_existingNo
environment_managerNoauto

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.7.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / revision / default
      Removed value: -"main"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "model_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "model_id",
+  "revision"
+]
  2. Addedv0.7.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden. It discloses two behavioral traits: the tool performs no network or execution, and revision must be a full immutable commit SHA. These are useful, but it does not explain what the plan contains, whether it validates inputs, or what side effects (if any) it has. Partial transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence) with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. While conciseness is good, the structure lacks necessary detail, making it less useful. It is not a tautology, but it does not earn a high score for structure because it omits key information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a 6-parameter tool with no parameter descriptions in the schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the nature of a semantic setup plan, the purpose of model_id, device choices, or the relationship to sibling research tools. Even though an output schema exists, the description alone leaves an agent without enough context to call the tool correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'revision' by requiring a full immutable commit SHA, but it says nothing about model_id, device, auto_refresh, reuse_existing, or environment_manager. Since only one of six parameters is clarified, the description provides marginal value but is largely insufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says 'Plan' but does not specify what is being planned. The name suggests 'semantic setup', but the description never mentions a resource or objective. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like research_prepare_ingest or research_semantic_models. The purpose is vague and inferable only from the tool name.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only mention is a constraint on the revision parameter, which is a parameter detail, not usage guidance. No sibling tools are referenced.

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