mne_plot_psdGenerate a power spectral density plot from Raw, Epochs, or Evoked data to examine frequency content. Returns a PNG path for easy visualization.
Plot the power spectral density of a Raw/Epochs/Evoked object. Returns a PNG path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fmax | No | ||
| fmin | No | ||
| name | No | raw | |
| picks | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and safety. It only mentions that it returns a PNG path, which hints at file creation but does not clarify whether the underlying data is modified, where the file is saved, or any other side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with the core action and output front-loaded. Each clause is relevant, and there is no filler. However, the extreme brevity leaves out important guidance that would count against completeness, though conciseness itself is strong.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and the need to disambiguate from sibling plotting tools, this description is incomplete. It clarifies the object type and return type, but leaves parameter semantics and operational context entirely unexplained, so an agent would likely struggle to call it correctly on the first try.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description adds no explanation for fmax, fmin, name, or picks. An agent must guess the meaning of 'name' and 'picks' and the units of fmin/fmax. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states a specific verb ('Plot'), a resource ('power spectral density'), and the valid data types ('Raw/Epochs/Evoked'), plus the return type ('PNG path'). This differentiates it from sibling plotting tools like mne_plot_raw or mne_plot_evoked, which plot time-domain signals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for frequency-domain visualization by naming the resource, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer the primary use case but not the decision boundary with other plotting tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.