Skip to main content
Glama
LGDiMaggio

Predictive Maintenance MCP Server

by LGDiMaggio

generate_feature_comparison_report

Create interactive HTML reports with violin plots to compare 17 time-domain features across signal groups, identifying 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).

    **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 list of signal files.
                      Example: {"Healthy": ["baseline_1.csv", "baseline_2.csv"],
                               "Faulty": ["InnerRaceFault_1.csv", "OuterRaceFault_1.csv"]}
        sampling_rate: Sampling rate (auto-detect from metadata if None)
        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

    Example:
        >>> generate_feature_comparison_report(
        ...     signal_groups={
        ...         "Healthy": ["real_train/baseline_1.csv", "real_train/baseline_2.csv"],
        ...         "Inner Fault": ["real_train/InnerRaceFault_vload_1.csv"],
        ...         "Outer Fault": ["real_train/OuterRaceFault_1.csv"]
        ...     }
        ... )
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signal_groupsYes
sampling_rateNo
segment_durationNo
overlap_ratioNo
features_to_plotNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so description must cover behavioral traits. It describes output (HTML report, dictionary) but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or specify file storage location. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Well-structured with purpose, Args, Returns, Example. Slightly long but every section earns its place. Efficiently front-loaded.

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?

Covers parameters, output, and example. Lacks potential error handling or assumptions about file formats, but sufficient for typical use.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so description fully explains each parameter. Provides clear examples for signal_groups, defaults for others, and explains their roles.

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?

Clearly states it generates a feature comparison report with violin plots for time-domain features. Differentiates from sibling report tools by focusing on feature discriminability.

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?

Provides strategy context: 'Useful for understanding which features are most discriminative for fault detection.' Implicitly guides when to use but does not explicitly exclude alternatives.

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