Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nimbus-mcp

nimbus-mcp

Official
by nimbusbci
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Get Template

get_template

Retrieve a full pipeline template, including the train execution graph required by run_pipeline and validate_pipeline.

Instructions

Full template incl. the 'train' execGraph needed by run_pipeline/validate_pipeline.

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": {
      "template_id": "<template_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
template_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the return is the full template including the 'train' execGraph, but says nothing about error behavior (e.g., unknown template_id), permissions, or whether other execGraphs exist.

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 that leads with the key scope ('Full template') and packs in the important downstream dependency. No waste, though it is very terse for the information an agent may need.

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 description does identify the execGraph content. Still, with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the definition is only minimally complete for a fetch-by-id tool.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter template_id, and the description adds no meaning about it (format, ID source, or lookup semantics). It neither compensates for the schema gap nor clarifies the 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 (template) and clarifies scope as the 'Full template incl. the train execGraph', which distinguishes it from list_templates. It does not explicitly name list_templates, but the 'full' qualifier and execGraph content imply a single complete object.

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?

The description ties the tool to run_pipeline/validate_pipeline, implying the execGraph is fetched ahead of running or validating a pipeline. However, it gives no explicit 'use this when/when not' or an alternative, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools