eLabFTW MCP

get_experiment

Fetch a single eLabFTW experiment by numeric ID to retrieve its full record, including body, metadata, tags, comments, links, and uploads. Read-only.

Instructions

Fetch a single elabFTW experiment by its numeric ID. Returns the full experiment record including body, metadata, tags, comments, links and uploads. Always safe to call; never writes anything.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_experiment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well on the key trait: 'Always safe to call; never writes anything' explicitly declares read-only safety. It also enumerates the returned contents. It omits auth/permission or not-found behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and identifier, then the return payload, then the safety note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple single-entity read with an output schema already documenting the return shape, the description supplies enough: what it fetches, how it is identified, and the read-only safety profile. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0% and the single parameter ('Id', integer) is described only mechanically, so the schema does not compensate. The description supplies the meaning — 'numeric ID' identifying the experiment to fetch — which resolves the otherwise undocumented parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (fetch), resource (elabFTW experiment), and scope (single, by numeric ID). The word 'single' cleanly separates it from the list_experiments sibling without the schema being opened.

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 implied by 'fetch a single experiment by its numeric ID', so an agent knows to use it when it already has an ID. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given, and no alternatives (e.g. list_experiments for discovery) are named.

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