IRIS MCP Blueprint

run_class_method

Invoke an ObjectScript class method by providing class name, method name, and optional arguments.

Instructions

Run an ObjectScript ClassMethod. Args: ctx: The context of the tool call. class_name: The name of the class to run the method on. method_name: The name of the method to run. args: The arguments to pass to the method.

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": {
      "class_name": "<class_name>",
      "method_name": "<method_name>"
    },
    "name": "run_class_method"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`class_name`	Yes
`method_name`	Yes
`args`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.4Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or whether the method may modify data. A generic method runner could be destructive, but this is not mentioned.

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?

The description is short and to the point, using a structured 'Args:' list. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more detailed without being verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present but not described, and 0% schema description coverage, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values or behavior for non-existent methods, leaving ambiguity.

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?

The description includes a docstring-style list explaining each parameter (class_name, method_name, args), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates minimally but adequately.

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 states 'Run an ObjectScript ClassMethod,' which clearly specifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying ObjectScript, though it could be more explicit about what a ClassMethod is.

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 tool versus alternative tools like 'get_class_source' or 'describe_table'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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