carmaker-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Summarise a result file

cm_results_summary

Read-only

Summarize quantities in a CarMaker .erg result file: get first, last, min, max, mean and unit values, plus row count and duration. Optionally list or filter quantity names.

Instructions

First / last / min / max / mean and unit of quantities in a result file, plus rows and duration.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`erg`	Yes	Result file (.erg): absolute path, or relative to the project
`search`	No	Instead of a summary, list the quantity names that contain this text ('PT.') or match this wildcard pattern ('Car.v'; '' lists all)
`quantities`	No	Quantities to summarise (default: Time, Car.v)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the set of aggregate statistics produced, which is useful, but discloses nothing about file-access constraints, error cases, or cost despite operating on an arbitrary path.

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?

A single compact sentence with no padding, and the output enumeration is front-loaded. It is slightly telegraphic but wastes nothing.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and all three params are documented. For a read-only summary tool the definition is essentially complete, with only the missing sibling/disambiguation context as a gap.

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 all three parameters fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail for `erg`, `search`, or `quantities` beyond what the schema already states.

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 (Summarise) and resource (result file), and enumerates the computed statistics (first/last/min/max/mean, unit, rows, duration). It is clear what the tool produces, but it never names or distinguishes itself from sibling result tools like cm_results_read or cm_results_list.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance and no comparison to the many sibling result/output tools. The only routing hint (that `search` switches behavior to name-listing) lives in the schema, not the description.

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