mcp-stashbox

Get one studio

get_studio

Read-only

Read one studio record by its instance:uuid identifier, merging matching catalogue data while showing source attribution and conflicting values; optionally limit results to specified catalogues.

Instructions

Read one studio from the catalogue its identifier names, written instance:uuid. The answer is one card, read on every catalogue that holds the record and reached by the link each of them publishes to the same record elsewhere. Every value names the catalogues that said it, and where they disagree the reading nobody preferred is published beside the one that won. Name 'sources' to read one catalogue alone.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`prefer`	No	The order the catalogues are preferred in where they disagree on a field. Left out, the registry's own order stands, and every card states the order applied.
`sources`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`card`	Yes
`cached`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.0Oct 30, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / card / properties / counts / additionalProperties / items / properties / value / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / card / properties / counts / additionalProperties / items / properties / value / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.0Aug 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / prefer / description

Previous value: -"The order the catalogues are preferred in where they disagree on a field. Left out, the order the registry declares stands. Every card states the order that was applied."New value: +"The order the catalogues are preferred in where they disagree on a field. Left out, the registry's own order stands, and every card states the order applied."

changedOutput schema / properties / card / properties / held_by / description

Previous value: -"Every catalogue asked, with the identifier the record carries there."New value: +"Every catalogue asked, with the identifier the record carries there. This is where what each of them did with the record is read: the state says which of the three it met, and the reason says why it was not asked or what went wrong."

removedOutput schema / properties / per_source

Removed value: -{
-  "items": {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "algorithms_not_searched": {
-        "description": "Fingerprint algorithms its lookup does not search, so they were never put to it.",
-        "items": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "type": "array"
-      },
-      "count": {
-        "description": "Rows it contributed. Never added to another catalogue's: they index corpora that overlap by an amount none of them publishes.",
-        "type": "number"
-      },
-      "error": {
-        "enum": [
-          "not_found",
-          "invalid_input",
-          "rate_limited",
-          "parse_failure",
-          "network_error",
-          "timeout"
-        ],
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "index_total": {
-        "description": "What its own index holds for this question, the rows on this page included.",
-        "type": "number"
-      },
-      "index_total_over_any_word": {
-        "description": "The total counts rows carrying any word of the query, its text index reading them apart.",
-        "type": "boolean"
-      },
-      "moment": {
-        "description": "Which moment failed.",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "name": {
-        "description": "The name that catalogue calls itself.",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "narrowings_naming_no_record": {
-        "description": "Narrowings written only with identifiers another catalogue minted.",
-        "items": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "type": "array"
-      },
-      "narrowings_not_received": {
-        "description": "Narrowings this catalogue cannot receive. This is the one field that says a catalogue cannot do something.",
-        "items": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "type": "array"
-      },
-      "narrowings_received_in_part": {
-        "items": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "type": "array"
-      },
-      "reason": {
-        "description": "Why it was not asked, or what went wrong.",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "records": {
-        "description": "Distinct records behind its rows.",
-        "type": "number"
-      },
-      "skipped": {
-        "description": "Rows it answered with that this client could not read and left out.",
-        "type": "number"
-      },
-      "source": {
-        "description": "The catalogue this row is about.",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "state": {
-        "description": "'answered' looked, and a count of zero means it found nothing. 'failed' could not answer, and states nothing about what it holds. 'absent' was never asked. Only the first is evidence about the world.",
-        "enum": [
-          "answered",
-          "failed",
-          "absent"
-        ],
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "unattributed": {
-        "description": "Records it answered with while carrying none of what was asked about.",
-        "type": "number"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "source",
-      "state"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

Addedv0.9.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover readOnly and openWorld, so the added value is the federation behavior: the record is read across every catalogue holding it, values are attributed to their source, and disagreements surface the non-preferred reading beside the winner. That is genuine behavioral context beyond annotations, though the wording is dense and the response shape is left vague (covered by the output schema).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is appropriately short in sentence count, but the sentences are ornate and front-loading suffers — 'one card, read on every catalogue that holds the record and reached by the link each of them publishes to the same record elsewhere' takes effort to parse. Content mostly earns its place; the phrasing does not.

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 output schema means return shape needn't be explained, yet the description spends effort gesturing at the card rather than crisply covering the merge/ordering semantics. For a federated-read tool with a partially documented schema, the essentials are present but not fully nailed down.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33%: 'prefer' is documented in the schema, but 'sources' has no schema description and 'id' only has a pattern. The description compensates by explaining the id format (instance:uuid) and that 'sources' restricts reading to a single named catalogue, adding meaning the schema lacks.

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: 'Read one studio from the catalogue its identifier names,' which clearly separates it from search_studios. The purpose is discernible but wrapped in ornate phrasing ('the catalogue its identifier names') that slows comprehension versus a plain 'fetch a single studio record by ID.'

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 implies when to use 'sources' (to read one catalogue alone) and mentions 'prefer' for ordering, which is useful conditional guidance. However, it never explicitly contrasts with search_studios (listing) or get_sources (catalogue listing), so the agent must infer the routing.

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

Deploy Server