Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
deenesjakoruzh
embrace-raw-readonly

embrace-raw-readonly

by nano-step
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

읽기 전용 전체 데이터 MCP 지원

이 로컬 stdio MCP는 게이트웨이 요약만 반환하는 대신 structuredContent를 포함한 공식 Embrace MCP 응답을 그대로 보존합니다.

Dashboard 쿠키를 사용하지 않으며 문서화되지 않은 Dashboard 엔드포인트에 접근하지 않습니다. 공식 Embrace MCP는 현재 집계 세션 도구와 상세 로그/크래시/네트워크/스팬 결과를 노출하며, 임의의 User Timeline 검색은 노출하지 않습니다.

실행

상위 MCP 프로세스는 서비스 계정 토큰을 상속해야 합니다:

export EMBRACE_API_TOKEN='...'
uv run server.py

토큰을 도구 인자로 전달하거나 파일에 커밋하지 마십시오.

Related MCP server: opencode-codex-mcp

도구

  • embrace_list_readonly_tools는 원격 도구 스키마를 반환합니다.

  • embrace_call_readonly(tool_name, arguments)는 허용 목록에 있는 하나의 도구를 전달하고 완전한 JSON-RPC 응답을 반환합니다.

서버에는 게시된 22개의 Embrace 도구에 대한 명시적 허용 목록이 있으며 그 외의 것은 모두 거부합니다.

스킬

워크플로 스킬은 skills/embrace-readonly-full-data/SKILL.md에 있습니다. 해당 디렉터리를 에이전트가 사용하는 스킬 디렉터리에 설치하거나 복사하십시오. 스킬은 에이전트가 스키마를 발견하고, 구조화된 응답을 보존하고, 상세 도구를 연결하고, 문서화되지 않은 Dashboard 엔드포인트를 피하도록 안내합니다.

MCP 클라이언트 구성

stdio MCP 서버를 지원하는 클라이언트의 경우:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "embrace-raw-readonly": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": ["run", "--project", "/path/to/embrace-readonly-mcp", "server.py"]
    }
  }
}

클라이언트 프로세스는 EMBRACE_API_TOKEN을 상속해야 합니다. 자격 증명 처리에 대한 자세한 내용은 docs/SECURITY.md를 참조하십시오.

Available Tools

2 tools
embrace_call_readonlyA

Call one published Embrace tool and return its complete JSON-RPC result.

This intentionally accepts arbitrary JSON arguments because the remote tool schemas evolve independently. Use embrace_list_readonly_tools first when the required arguments are unknown.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argumentsNo
tool_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that it accepts arbitrary JSON arguments and returns the complete JSON-RPC result, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention any side effects, error behaviors, or confirm that it only calls read-only tools (implied by the name). This is a moderate transparency gap given the lack of annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and both sentences earn their place. The structure is clean and efficient, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

While the output schema likely covers return values, the description omits the apparently important fact that this tool is restricted to read-only operations (suggested by the name and sibling). It also doesn't mention error handling or prerequisites beyond discovering arguments. For a generic dispatcher, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains the 'arguments' parameter well (arbitrary JSON) but does not elaborate on 'tool_name' beyond what the schema already shows. The description partially compensates but not fully, especially since tool_name is required and its purpose is only implied.

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 clearly states the tool calls one published Embrace tool and returns the JSON-RPC result. It distinguishes itself from the sibling by emphasizing it's a dispatcher, not a listing tool. A slightly higher score is withheld because it doesn't explicitly contrast with embrace_list_readonly_tools in terms of purpose, but the intent is unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit guidance: use embrace_list_readonly_tools first when arguments are unknown. It also explains why arbitrary arguments are accepted (schemas evolve independently), which informs when this tool is the right choice. This is clear and actionable usage direction.

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

embrace_list_readonly_toolsA

Return the official Embrace read-only tool schemas as full JSON.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It correctly implies a read operation and states the return format (full JSON), but it does not disclose any other behaviors such as potential size limits, whether all read-only tools are included, or if there are any side effects. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and carries no fluff. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has an output schema and zero parameters, so the description covers the essential purpose. It might mention that it is the authoritative source for schemas, but given the low complexity and presence of the output schema, the description is nearly complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the description needs no per-parameter explanation. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant information about parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a clear verb ('Return') and specific resource ('official Embrace read-only tool schemas as full JSON'), making it obvious what the tool does. It is distinct from the sibling embrace_call_readonly, which presumably calls a specific tool rather than listing schemas.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus embrace_call_readonly or any other alternative. It does not explain typical use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when listing schemas is appropriate.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedembrace_call_readonly
    • First observedembrace_list_readonly_tools
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists available tools, the other invokes a specific tool. There is no overlap or ambiguity in selecting between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Both tools start with 'embrace_' and include 'readonly', but one is 'list_readonly_tools' (verb_noun) while the other is 'call_readonly' (verb_adjective). The pattern is mostly consistent but not perfectly parallel.

Tool Count2/5

With only two tools, the surface is thin. However, this is a deliberate thin proxy layer for a remote readonly API, so the minimalism is justified, but it still falls below the typical well-scoped range.

Completeness5/5

The two tools form a complete interface for interacting with the remote readonly toolset: listing available schemas and calling them. There are no missing operations within the stated scope of acting as a proxy.

Maintenance

ActivityStale
ResponsivenessNo recent community issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers