Skip to main content
Glama
LGDiMaggio

Predictive Maintenance MCP Server

by LGDiMaggio

generate_feature_comparison_report

Creates interactive HTML report with violin plots comparing time-domain features across signal groups to identify discriminative features for fault detection.

Instructions

    Generate feature comparison report with violin plots comparing time-domain features.

    Creates interactive HTML report with violin plots showing distribution of 17
    time-domain features across different signal groups (e.g., Healthy vs Faulty).
    Requires every signal loaded via load_signal() first; each signal's
    sampling rate comes from its stored metadata.

    **Strategy**: Same HTML report approach as other reports. Useful for understanding
    which features are most discriminative for fault detection.

    Args:
        signal_groups: Dictionary mapping group names to lists of stored
                      signal IDs.
                      Example: {"Healthy": ["real_train_baseline_1"],
                               "Faulty": ["real_train_OuterRaceFault_1"]}
        segment_duration: Segment duration in seconds (default: 0.1s for ML)
        overlap_ratio: Overlap ratio 0-1 (default: 0.5)
        features_to_plot: List of feature names to plot (default: all 17 features)
        ctx: MCP context

    Returns:
        Dictionary with file path, metadata, and summary

    Raises:
        ValueError: If a signal_id is not loaded or has no sampling rate.

    Example:
        >>> generate_feature_comparison_report(
        ...     signal_groups={
        ...         "Healthy": ["real_train_baseline_1", "real_train_baseline_2"],
        ...         "Inner Fault": ["real_train_InnerRaceFault_vload_1"],
        ...         "Outer Fault": ["real_train_OuterRaceFault_1"]
        ...     }
        ... )
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
overlap_ratioNo
signal_groupsYes
features_to_plotNo
segment_durationNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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 prerequisites (signals loaded), data source (stored metadata), error conditions (ValueError for unloaded signals), and strategy (same HTML approach as other reports). It doesn't mention side effects or auth, but for a read-only report tool this is acceptable.

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 well-organized with sections for purpose, requirements, strategy, parameters, returns, raises, and example. It is concise at about 15 lines but could be slightly tighter. Front-loading of purpose is good.

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 the complexity (nested object, 4 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers prerequisites, error handling, default values, and a full example. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without additional clarification.

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 fully compensates. It explains signal_groups with an example, segment_duration with default and purpose, overlap_ratio with range, and features_to_plot with default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal titles.

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 generates a feature comparison report with violin plots for time-domain features. It specifies the output format (interactive HTML) and distinguishes from sibling report tools by focusing on feature comparison and discriminative analysis.

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 explains that signals must be loaded via load_signal() first, provides an example usage, and notes the tool is useful for fault detection feature analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to other report generators like generate_fft_report.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LGDiMaggio/predictive-maintenance-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server