nimbus-mcp

Official

by nimbusbci

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

Get Execution

get_execution

Retrieve the status of an EEG/BCI pipeline execution by ID to check if it is running, completed, failed, or cancelled.

Instructions

Execution status summary (status: running/completed/failed/cancelled).

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": {
      "execution_id": "<execution_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_execution"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`execution_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful behavioral context by enumerating the possible status values (running/completed/failed/cancelled), which the schema does not. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, or behavior for an unknown execution_id.

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 short sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter detail noted above.

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 no explanation, and the status enumeration is a helpful addition. Still, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, an agent lacks the provenance of execution_id and any assurance that this is a safe read.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter execution_id has no description in either place. The description does not explain the id's format or where to obtain it, so the parameter remains under-specified despite the tool being simple.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Execution status summary') and scopes it to the status field. An agent can distinguish it from cancel_execution, list_executions, and get_results, though the description never explicitly names those siblings. The word 'summary' leaves some ambiguity about whether the full execution record or just a status is returned.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_executions or get_results, and no hint that an execution_id must first be obtained elsewhere. The only usage signal is the implied 'look up one execution by id', which is left to inference.

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