Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
uni-t-uts-mcp

uni-t-uts-mcp

by Reid-n0rc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_bandwidth

Read-only

Retrieve a spectrum analyzer's resolution and video bandwidth in Hz, including auto flags, VBW/RBW ratio, and Gaussian or flattop filter shape for accurate measurement setup.

Instructions

Get resolution and video bandwidth (Hz) with their auto flags, the VBW/RBW ratio and the filter shape (gaussian or flattop).

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": "get_bandwidth"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
instrumentNoWhich 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.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful return-content detail (units in Hz, the auto flags, the derived VBW/RBW ratio, and the two filter-shape values), but says nothing about whether auto-flag states affect the reported bandwidths or how they interact with set_bandwidth.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the primary returns and appends the secondary values, with no filler wording.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description must convey the return payload, and it does list the key returned fields plus units. It is slightly thin on structure — e.g., how the auto flags are represented or whether filter shape can be null — but overall sufficient for a simple reader.

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?

There is a single optional 'instrument' parameter with 100% schema description coverage including the default-resolution behavior, so the schema carries all the meaning. The description adds nothing about parameter selection; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('resolution and video bandwidth') and enumerates exactly what the call yields: auto flags, VBW/RBW ratio, and filter shape. This implicitly separates it from the set_bandwidth setter, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the read-style phrasing and the 'set_bandwidth' name in the catalog; there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of ordering relative to set_bandwidth, and no prerequisites called out.

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