Galaxy Cluster Catalogs MCP Server

get_dispatch

Reports where this server's heavy tools currently execute, helping you identify the active compute location before running resource-intensive galaxy-cluster catalog operations.

Instructions

Report where THIS server's heavy tools currently execute.

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": "get_dispatch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; "Report" and "currently" imply a non-mutating read of current state, and "THIS server's" usefully scopes the result to the local node. However, it never explicitly states read-only safety, permission requirements, or what happens in a single-server deployment, so behavioural disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is arguably too terse for a term ("dispatch") that is not self-explanatory, but as a concise statement of intent it is near-optimal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the absence of parameters keeps the surface small. Still, an agent arriving cold has no definition of what "dispatch" controls, how the answer relates to set_dispatch, or whether the reported location can differ across servers — gaps that matter for a configuration-inspection tool.

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 the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate about arguments.

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 names a specific verb ("Report") and a concrete resource (where this server's heavy tools execute), and the capitalised "THIS server's" signals it is a per-server configuration read rather than a global listing. It is distinguishable from set_dispatch and export_dispatch_pack by the read-only "report" framing, though the meaning of "dispatch" itself (host, backend, process?) is left implicit.

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: "currently" suggests checking state, plausibly before calling set_dispatch or before running heavy tools, but the description never says when to call it or names set_dispatch/export_dispatch_pack as alternatives. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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