nimbus-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Validate Node Config

validate_node_config

Validate a node config object against its schema to catch invalid settings before building or running EEG/BCI pipelines.

Instructions

Validate one node's config object against its schema (get_node_schema).

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>",
      "config": "<config>"
    },
    "name": "validate_node_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`config`	Yes
`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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does convey that this is a validation/check operation (not a mutation) and names the schema source, but says nothing about required permissions, what happens on failure, or whether it is purely read-only. Return values are covered by the output schema, which lowers but does not remove this gap.

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. It is efficient, though the parenthetical schema reference is slightly terse and could be sharpened.

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?

For a 2-param tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and schema source but omits any routing between this tool and validate_pipeline and gives no config-shape guidance, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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 compensate. It references the config object and, via 'its schema', implicitly the node_type that selects that schema, but adds no format or structure detail for either parameter. Partially compensating at best.

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+resource: validate one node's config object against its schema. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling validate_pipeline (node-level vs pipeline-level), though the description never names that sibling 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?

The parenthetical reference to get_node_schema implies where the schema comes from, suggesting a usage flow, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or guidance on choosing this over validate_pipeline. Usage must be inferred.

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