Retrieve the signature, parameters, notes, and examples for a PyLops workflow, optionally for a specific PyLops version, to inspect how it works and how to use it.
Get signature, parameters, notes and examples of a PyLops workflow.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned content and the version-resolution behavior (default = latest), which is genuine added context, but says nothing about lookup-failure behavior, case sensitivity, or whether results are cached/read-only.
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 with no filler: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second handles the only optional parameter. Nothing redundant.
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?
With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values, and it sensibly spends its budget on version selection instead. The remaining gap is the unexplained `name` parameter and failure behavior, which are minor but real for a 2-parameter tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for pylops_version (gives a concrete format example '2.6' and states the default is latest), but the required `name` parameter is entirely unexplained — no hint about naming conventions or format.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a PyLops workflow') and enumerates the payload (signature, parameters, notes, examples), which distinguishes it from get_operator/get_solver siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings by name.
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?
Usage is only implied: it is a name-based lookup, so an agent can infer it should be called after list_workflows returns a name. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement that get_operator should be used for operators, and no note on what happens when the name is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.