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

uni-t-uts-mcp

by Reid-n0rc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

identify

Read-only

Retrieve a spectrum analyzer's manufacturer, model, serial number, and firmware version via SCPI, optionally selecting a configured instrument by name.

Instructions

Query the analyzer identification (*IDN?): manufacturer, model, serial number and firmware version.

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": "identify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoInstrument name (1-32 letters, digits, '_' or '-'). Default: the `default` instrument, or the only one configured. See list_instruments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe, non-mutating query. The description adds value by naming the returned fields (manufacturer, model, serial, firmware), which is useful since there is no output schema, but it discloses nothing about failure behavior when the instrument is not connected or the name is unknown.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler, leading with the verb and the underlying SCPI command before listing the returned fields.

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?

For a single-parameter read with annotations already covering safety, the description is nearly complete, since it spells out the return content in the absence of an output schema. Only connection prerequisites and error behavior are left unstated.

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 single optional 'name' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including default resolution and a pointer to list_instruments. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Query') and the exact resource (*IDN? analyzer identification), then enumerates the four returned fields. That clearly distinguishes it from the get_* siblings such as get_frequency or get_amplitude.

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: retrieve instrument identity. It gives no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites such as needing an active connection, and no comparison to sibling getters, though the *IDN? semantics make the intent fairly obvious.

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