MNE-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Mne Resample

mne_resample

Resample Raw or Epochs objects to a new sampling frequency (Hz) in place, adjusting neurophysiology data for consistent analysis.

Instructions

Resample a Raw/Epochs object to a new sampling frequency (Hz), in place.

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_resample"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No		raw
`sfreq`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that resampling happens 'in place', which is a key behavioral trait, but it does not explain side effects, whether the original data is overwritten, what the return value is, or any constraints. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, target, output condition, and mutation mode compactly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It leaves the 'name' parameter unexplained and does not clarify side effects or return behavior, even though an output schema exists.

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% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It indirectly clarifies 'sfreq' via 'new sampling frequency (Hz)', but it never explains the 'name' parameter, which appears to select which object to resample. The compensation is only partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resample'), names the resource ('Raw/Epochs object'), and states the outcome ('new sampling frequency (Hz)'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like filter or crop, so an agent can tell what this tool does.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need to change the sampling frequency of a Raw/Epochs object. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as mne_filter for frequency filtering.

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