Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-openems

mcp-openems

by RFingAdam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

openems_create_dipole

Design a half-wave dipole antenna by specifying center frequency and wire radius. Generates a ready-to-use model for openEMS simulation.

Instructions

Design a half-wave dipole antenna. Classic resonant antenna with well-known characteristics.

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": {
      "frequency_ghz": "<frequency_ghz>"
    },
    "name": "openems_create_dipole"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoDesign name
frequency_ghzYesCenter frequency in GHz
wire_radius_mmNoWire radius in mm (default 1.0)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Design a half-wave dipole antenna.' It does not mention side effects, return values, or any safety/state implications, leaving the agent without essential context for a creation tool.

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, front-loaded with the action. Every word contributes; no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how the design is generated, or how it compares to nearby sibling tools like monopole, despite having several related creation tools in context.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (name, frequency_ghz, wire_radius_mm), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, such as how frequency or wire radius affect the antenna design.

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?

The description clearly states the tool designs a half-wave dipole antenna, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like monopole, patch, and horn antennas.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose a dipole over alternative antennas such as monopole or patch. The phrase 'classic resonant antenna' implies a general-purpose antenna but does not describe preferred use cases or trade-offs.

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