mavforge-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

params_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads a single vehicle parameter by exact name and returns its value; fails with param_not_found when the parameter does not exist.

Instructions

Read one parameter by exact name (1-16 letters, digits, underscores). Read-only. Fails with param_not_found if the vehicle reports no such parameter.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "params_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`param`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`vehicle`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the name syntax constraint (1-16 letters, digits, underscores) and the specific `param_not_found` error case, which tells the agent how to interpret a miss.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the safety note and the failure behavior. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to handle input semantics and error behavior, which it does. The one gap is that it never names params_list as the fallback for discovery, leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does — it specifies the accepted character set, length bound, and that the match is exact. It is not exhaustive (case sensitivity is only hinted at by 'exact name'), so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 verb and resource ('Read one parameter') plus an exact lookup mode ('by exact name'), which implicitly separates it from params_list. It does not name the alternative sibling explicitly, keeping it shy 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 implied: a single-parameter lookup by exact name is the natural alternative to params_list, and the failure mode tells the agent what happens on a bad name. However, it never says 'use this when you know the exact name, otherwise use params_list' or states prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server