MNE-MCP

by Exekiel179

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Mne Plot Ica Components

mne_plot_ica_components

Plot ICA component scalp topographies to identify eye, heart, or muscle artifacts. Returns PNG path(s).

Instructions

Plot ICA component scalp topographies (to identify eye/heart/muscle artifacts). Returns PNG path(s).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "mne_plot_ica_components"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ica_name`	No		ica

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description alone must convey safety and behavior. It discloses that the tool produces PNG path(s), implying file output, and 'Plot' implies a non-mutating visualization, but it does not explicitly state that it saves PNG files to session storage, whether a fitted ICA object must exist, or that no data is modified.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's action and purpose, then output format. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers what the tool does and its primary output, though it leaves the session prerequisite (an existing ICA fit) implicit.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 0% descriptive coverage and the description does not mention the ica_name parameter at all. The parameter name and default 'ica' are inferable, but the description fails to clarify that this is the name of an existing ICA object in the session, which is necessary for non-default usage.

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 names a specific action and resource: plotting ICA component scalp topographies, and explicitly states the artifact-identification purpose. This is distinguishable from siblings such as mne_plot_ica_sources, which would plot component time courses rather than topographies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The stated purpose 'to identify eye/heart/muscle artifacts' tells an agent when this tool is appropriate, and 'scalp topographies' distinguishes it from source/epoch plotting alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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