Skip to main content
Glama
Konjkov

casino-mcp

casino_run

Start a CASINO quantum Monte Carlo calculation in a workdir and return immediately; restart or resume to handle interrupted runs.

Instructions

Start a CASINO calculation in workdir and return immediately.

The runtype (vmc, vmc_opt, vmc_dmc, ...) comes from the input file in workdir; this tool only decides how the binary is launched. The calculation keeps running after the call returns and after this server is restarted.

A directory that already holds an out is refused, because runqmc appends to it and the result is two runs in one file. restart and resume are the two ways past that, and they are opposites -- pass one.

workdir: directory holding input and the wave function files. nproc: number of MPI processes (vmc_nstep in input is the total over all of them). version: binary flavour, 'opt' or 'debug'. restart: delete out and everything else the earlier run left -- .hist files, configs, optimisation output -- and start the calculation over. Inputs are kept. Destructive: config.in goes too, so what could have been continued no longer can be. Refused on a directory whose input haltqmc has set up to continue (NEWRUN : F), because CASINO then wants the config.in this would delete; casino_stop keeps a copy of the input as it was, and the reply to the stop says where. resume: carry the interrupted run on, keeping the work already done. Which of CASINO's two continuation routes that takes is read out of out, not chosen here: a run that CASINO stopped on max_cpu_time / max_real_time is continued by runqmc --continue, and a run that casino_stop halted is continued by a plain runqmc over the input that haltqmc -u rewrote. The reply says which one under resume. A run that reached its own end is refused -- there is nothing to continue. unlock: clear a stale .runqmc.lock left by a runqmc instance that died.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nprocNo
resumeNo
unlockNo
restartNo
versionNoopt
workdirYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the calculation outlives the call and server restart, that `out` is appended to and can corrupt results, that restart is destructive to `config.in` and optimization output, and how resume behaves under different halting conditions. This is deep, honest behavioral disclosure.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then organizes the non-obvious behavioral details and parameter semantics in a structured, scannable way. The density is justified by the tool's complexity and destructive options.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a 6-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete: it covers prerequisites, launch semantics, background persistence, destructive behavior, failure conditions, and parameter interactions. The presence of an output schema relieves it from detailing return values, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. Every parameter — workdir, nproc, version, restart, resume, unlock — gets meaningful explanation beyond its name, including relationships like nproc counting total vmc_nstep, version being a binary flavour, and the precise effects of restart versus resume.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Start a CASINO calculation in workdir and return immediately.' It clarifies that the runtype comes from the input file and that this tool only controls binary launch, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like casino_prepare, casino_status, and casino_stop.

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?

It gives strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: directories with existing `out` are refused, restart and resume are opposites, resume is refused for completed runs, and restart is refused when NEWRUN : F is set. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for common flows, but the contextual sibling list makes the intended role clear.

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