hicar-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

generate_namelist_tool

Generate a full or minimal configuration namelist for HICAR with optional physics scheme selections. Enable use_binary to delegate namelist generation to HICAR --gen-nml.

Instructions

Generate a namelist ('full' or 'minimal') with optional physics scheme selections. With use_binary, delegate to HICAR --gen-nml instead.

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": "generate_namelist_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mp`	No
`sm`	No
`lsm`	No
`pbl`	No
`rad`	No
`sfc`	No
`conv`	No
`mode`	No	full
`wind`	No
`water`	No
`use_binary`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions delegation with use_binary but does not describe whether the tool creates files, requires permissions, or returns data. The lack of output schema or return value description is a significant gap.

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?

The description is two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence conveys the core function, the second adds alternative behavior. It is appropriately sized but could benefit from more structure.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and high complexity, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and parameter constraints, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool reliably.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'mode' and 'physics scheme selections' generically, leaving 11 parameters (e.g., mp, sm, lsm) undocumented. The agent cannot know valid values or semantics from the description alone.

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 clearly states it generates a namelist with two modes ('full' or 'minimal') and optional physics scheme selections. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_namelist or explain_namelist.

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 description provides context on when to use the 'use_binary' flag but does not compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus siblings. The agent must infer usage from the purpose.

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