Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-openems

mcp-openems

by RFingAdam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

openems_create_horn

Design a pyramidal horn antenna for a target gain by calculating aperture dimensions and length from the center frequency.

Instructions

Design a pyramidal horn antenna for specified gain. Calculates aperture dimensions and length.

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_horn"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoDesign name
gain_dbiNoTarget gain in dBi (typically 10-25)
frequency_ghzYesCenter frequency in GHz

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful behavioral detail by stating it calculates aperture dimensions and length, but it does not disclose whether the design is saved, returned, or what side effects occur. This is minimal but not completely opaque.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no extraneous information.

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?

The tool has no output schema or annotations, yet the description does not state what the tool returns or whether it saves a design. This leaves the agent uncertain about how to handle the result, especially since sibling tools like get_design and export_design imply a stored design workflow.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description links gain to dimension calculation, adding some context, but it does not elaborate on the name parameter or parameter trade-offs beyond what the schema already provides.

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 pyramidal horn antenna for a specified gain and calculates aperture dimensions and length. This specific verb-noun pair distinguishes it from sibling antenna creation tools like patch, dipole, and helix.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage: when you need a pyramidal horn antenna with a specific gain. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the clear purpose provides adequate contextual guidance.

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