uni-t-uts-mcp

delete_emi_limit_line

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes the points of a chosen EMI limit line or all EMI limit lines, requiring an active EMI module and waiting for the analyzer to complete the deletion.

Instructions

Delete the points of one EMI limit line (line) or of all EMI limit lines (all: true). EMI module must be active (select_instrument_module). Type, trace and margin settings are left as they are. The result confirms the line is empty (for all, line 1 is checked); the analyzer finishes a delete a moment after it is sent, so the tool waits for it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "delete_emi_limit_line"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`all`	No	Delete every EMI limit line instead of one
`line`	No	Limit line number, 1 to 6 (EMI mode has only 3 traces to test against, see 'trace')
`instrument`	No	Which instrument to use (a name from list_instruments). Default: the `default` instrument, or the only one configured

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and readOnly=false, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real behavior: type/trace/margin settings are preserved, the result verifies the line is empty (only line 1 for the `all` case), and the call waits for the analyzer to finish. That timing and verification detail is not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Four sentences, all load-bearing, with the capability stated first and prerequisites and timing after. The parenthetical "(select_instrument_module)" and the trailing clause about waiting are dense but earn their space; nothing is redundant filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a three-parameter, no-output-schema mutation, the definition covers the prerequisite, the preservation of untouched settings, and the asynchronous completion plus the confirmation semantics of the return. There is no output schema to require further return-value explanation.

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%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between `line` and `all: true` and the special verification behavior for line 1. The `instrument` parameter is untouched, but the schema documents it fully.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Delete the points of one EMI limit line") and covers both operating modes (single line vs. `all: true`). It does not name the sibling `delete_limit_line`, so the distinction between the EMI and non-EMI variants is left implicit, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 definition states a hard prerequisite ("EMI module must be active (select_instrument_module)"), which tells the agent what must precede the call and which sibling to invoke first. It stops short of explicitly ruling out `delete_limit_line` for non-EMI work, so usage guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server