nimbus-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Node Schema

get_node_schema

Retrieve the full config JSON schema and input/output ports for a specified node type, so you can validate or build EEG/BCI pipeline nodes correctly.

Instructions

Full config JSON schema + input/output ports for one node type.

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": {
      "node_type": "<node_type>"
    },
    "name": "get_node_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node_type`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the return contains both a config schema and port definitions, which is real content beyond the input schema, but says nothing about whether node_type values must come from an existing pipeline, what happens for unknown types, or permission requirements.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the key noun phrase ('Full config JSON schema') and adds the port detail without padding. Nothing wasted, though 'Full' is slightly vague about what is included.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter description coverage, the description leaves the agent without guidance on valid node_type values or error behavior.

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% and the single node_type parameter has no description in the schema. The description partially compensates by framing the tool as operating on 'one node type', implying the parameter is a node-type identifier, but it gives no format, valid values, or source for that identifier.

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 specific verb (get) and resource (node schema) and specifies exactly what is returned: the full config JSON schema plus input/output ports for a single node type. This clearly separates it from list_nodes (enumeration) and validate_node_config (checking a config), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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: the phrase 'for one node type' suggests fetching this before configuring or validating a node, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g., obtain node_type from list_nodes), and no mention of alternatives.

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