Retrieve a PyLops operator's signature, parameters, notes, and usage examples by name, optionally for a specific PyLops version, so agents can inspect operators without web searching.
Get signature, parameters, notes and examples of a PyLops operator.
pylops_version selects the PyLops version (e.g. "2.6"); default is the latest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| pylops_version | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the tool returns (signature, params, notes, examples) and that version selection defaults to latest, which is genuinely useful. It omits anything about lookup errors for missing operators, whether names are matched exactly or fuzzily, and whether version formats other than '2.6' are accepted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource scope front-loaded before the version caveat. Slightly better if the version sentence were tied to a use case rather than a bare syntax note.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description correctly refrains. What remains missing is routing context against ten siblings — without it, an agent seeing list_operators, search, and get_operator together has no stated criterion for choosing this one.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents pylops_version well (example format '2.6', default is latest) but leaves the required 'name' parameter undefined beyond the implication that it is an operator name — no guidance on exact spelling, casing, or module prefix. Roughly half the compensation is delivered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('signature, parameters, notes and examples of a PyLops operator'), and it enumerates the returned content. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling list_* tools (which list names) and from search, but never names those siblings explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indication of when to call this versus list_operators, search, or get_solver/get_workflow. The agent must infer that this is the detailed-lookup counterpart of list_operators, and there is no mention of failure behavior for unknown names or unsupported versions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.