Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
purplemux-mcp

purplemux-mcp

by yoway030
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

pmux_get_tab

Retrieve information for a specific tab by providing its workspace ID and tab ID.

Instructions

Get info for a single tab by id.

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": {
      "workspaceId": "<workspaceId>",
      "tabId": "<tabId>"
    },
    "name": "pmux_get_tab"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tabIdYesTarget tab id (from pmux_list_tabs / pmux_create_tab).
workspaceIdYesTarget workspace id (from pmux_list_workspaces).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation ('Get info') without mentioning side effects, permissions, rate limits, or any behavioral constraints. This is insufficient for a safe agent invocation.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to specify what 'info' is returned, leaving the agent guessing about the output structure. This gap reduces completeness.

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 100% with both parameters having clear descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Target tab id from pmux_list_tabs / pmux_create_tab'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating the parameter role ('by id'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description specifies a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('info for a single tab'), with the identifier ('by id') that distinguishes it from siblings like pmux_list_tabs and pmux_tab_status. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage when a specific tab ID is available, but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives like pmux_list_tabs for enumeration. The context is only implied.

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