Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EMC Regulations MCP Server

EMC Regulations MCP Server

by RFingAdam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

iec61000_test_levels

Retrieve IEC 61000-4-x immunity test levels for ESD, radiated, EFT, surge, conducted RF, magnetic field, and voltage dips standards.

Instructions

Get IEC 61000-4-x immunity test levels. Standards: ESD (4-2), radiated (4-3), EFT/burst (4-4), surge (4-5), conducted RF (4-6), magnetic field (4-8), voltage dips (4-11).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "standard": "<standard>"
    },
    "name": "iec61000_test_levels"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
standardYesIEC 61000-4-x part number or common name
levelNoSpecific test level (1-4/5) to query

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, what side effects exist, or rate limits. The minimal description leaves agents without key behavioral context.

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?

One concise sentence with a clear list of standards. No wasted words, though the structure could be slightly improved (e.g., bullet points or clearer formatting).

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It lists all standards but does not explain what the returned levels represent (e.g., voltage or current values). Could be more complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with enums and descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by mapping common names (e.g., 'ESD' -> '4-2') which aids interpretation beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves IEC 61000-4-x immunity test levels and lists specific standards. The purpose is distinct from siblings like iec61000_overview which provides overview rather than levels.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as iec61000_overview or emc_compare_limits. Missing context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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