Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CODE V MCP

CODE V MCP

by MERURUXD
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_analysis

Retrieve the status, numerical results, and images of the current analysis task. Returns JSON and MCP image content, with a copy saved to the result file.

Instructions

获取当前分析任务的状态、数值结果与图像。

结果以文本 JSON 返回，图像同时作为 MCP 图像内容返回，并在结果文件中保留副本。

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": "get_analysis"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful non-obvious traits: results come back as text JSON, images are additionally emitted as MCP image content, and a copy is retained in the result file. It omits failure behavior when no analysis is running, permissions, and whether repeated calls are cheap.

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?

Two short sentences: the first front-loads purpose and scope, the second covers the return channels. No filler, no restatement of the name or title, and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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

Completeness3/5

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

A no-parameter read tool with an output schema and full schema coverage needs little text, so the description is close to sufficient. However, the unresolved overlap with the sibling get_status and the absence of any precondition (an analysis must be running) leave a real gap for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description adds no misleading parameter information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ("get the status, numerical results, and images of the current analysis task") and scopes it to the current analysis, so the agent knows what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_status, which creates residual ambiguity about which of the two to call.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. call after run_analysis, only valid while an analysis is active), and no exclusion of the sibling get_status or run_analysis. The phrase "current analysis task" weakly implies post-startup use, but the agent must infer everything.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools