lightweight MCP server that interacts with the ClearML API
The server provides 8 read-only tools for querying ClearML tasks and models. Tool names follow verb_noun convention (get_*, list_*) which is good. However, parameter descriptions are minimal or absent, schemas lack completeness in several tools, and output schemas are not documented. Descriptions are present but generic (under 100 chars in most cases), and error handling is not visible in the code provided. The tools are well-scoped (each does one thing) but lack the depth of documentation needed for reliable agent invocation. Most tools score in the 45-60 range; the average reflects significant gaps in parameter detail and output documentation.
Get model files and download URLs.
Get model metadata and configuration.
Get task artifacts and outputs.
Get ClearML task details, parameters, and status.
Get task training metrics and scalars.
Get task hyperparameters and configuration.
List available models with filtering.
Output schemas not documented. No visible return type specifications for any tool. LLMs cannot plan downstream operations or extract required fields without knowing response structure.
Parameter descriptions are minimal. Most params have one-line descriptions ('The ClearML task ID to retrieve...'). No guidance on formats, constraints, enums, or when/why to use optional params. LLMs cannot reason effectively about which params to include.
list_tasks and list_models accept optional filters but no pagination parameters visible. No limit, offset, or cursor. Large result sets could blow context windows. Baseline pattern expects limit/offset and total count.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-21 | D | 56 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | D | 55 | - | v1 |
List ClearML tasks with filters.
No visible error handling guidance. Code analysis cannot confirm that tools return actionable error messages (what failed, why, what to do next). Error responses should categorize as retryable vs user-fixable vs fatal.
Tool descriptions lack dependency hints and selection guidance. E.g., 'get_task_info' vs 'get_task_parameters' vs 'get_task_metrics', when should LLM pick which? Descriptions do not explain overlaps or preconditions.
Schema completeness varies. list_tasks params show type arrays and nullable strings, but detailed constraint info (enum values for 'status', valid tag patterns) is missing. LLMs may pass invalid status values.
No evidence of idempotency guarantees or request deduplication. If an LLM retries get_task_info due to transient failure, is it safe? Code audit needed to confirm read-only safety.