hicar-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

validate_namelist

Validate a HICAR namelist string: detect unknown groups, options, bad enum values, and out-of-range issues. Optionally run a binary check.

Instructions

Validate a namelist string. Static checks always run (unknown groups/options, bad enum values, out-of-range, type/per-nest issues). If use_binary and a compiled HICAR is available, also run --check-nml.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "validate_namelist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes
`use_binary`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that static checks always run and binary checks are conditional on use_binary and HICAR availability. It does not specify output format or side effects, but as a validation tool, it is inherently safe and non-mutating.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. No redundant information.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's behavior and conditions. It could detail return values or error handling, but the conditional binary check and static checks are adequately described for a validation tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that 'content' is a namelist string and 'use_binary' triggers a binary check if available. However, it does not define 'namelist' or expected format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the tool validates a namelist string, detailing specific static checks (unknown groups/options, bad enum values, etc.) and a conditional binary check. This distinct verb-resource pairing differentiates it from sibling tools focused on searching, explaining, or generating namelists.

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 description implies the tool should be used to validate namelist strings, and sibling names make the distinction clear. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, and the conditional nature of the binary check is mentioned but not fully elaborated.

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