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

uni-t-uts-mcp

by Reid-n0rc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

set_emi_correction

Idempotent

Edit EMI correction (antenna/cable) factor slots by setting frequency/gain points, enabling or clearing corrections, or turning all slots off on a UNI-T UTS analyzer.

Instructions

Edit an EMI correction (antenna/cable) factor set. EMI module must be active (select_instrument_module). Give slot plus any of: points (replaces the whole point list; 1 to 10 points in ascending frequency order, each with frequency_hz and gain_db), enabled (on/off), or delete (clears this slot's points; not combined with points). Or give all_off (turns every slot off) or delete_all (clears every slot's points) alone, without slot. The slot (or slot 1, for all_off/delete_all) is re-read afterwards; anything the instrument did not take is reported in 'warnings'.

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": "set_emi_correction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slotNoRequired unless all_off or delete_all is the only action given
deleteNoClear this slot's points (sent before points/enabled)
pointsNoReplace slot's whole point list: 1 to 10 points in ascending frequency order
all_offNoTurn off every correction slot's enabled state (:CSET:ALL:STATe OFF); exclusive of slot/points/enabled/delete/delete_all
enabledNoTurn this slot's correction on/off
delete_allNoClear every correction slot's points (:CSET:ALL:DELete); exclusive of slot/points/enabled/delete/all_off
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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description carries the real burden and does: it discloses that points replaces the entire list, that delete clears the slot's points, that all_off/delete_all affect every slot, that the slot is re-read afterwards, and that rejected writes surface in a 'warnings' field. That is behavior beyond both the annotations and the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the activation prerequisite, then the action modes in a compact parenthetical. It is dense but every clause carries a constraint; the only cost is a slightly run-on sentence packing several exclusivity rules together.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, all mutually exclusive parameter combinations, partial-failure reporting via 'warnings', and instrument selection context. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by adding cross-parameter composition rules the schema cannot express (delete is not combined with points; all_off/delete_all must be used alone without a slot; default slot 1 for the global actions). The per-field meanings themselves largely duplicate the schema.

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 and resource: "Edit an EMI correction (antenna/cable) factor set." The edit-vs-get split from the sibling get_emi_correction is implied rather than named, but the scope (a single slot's correction points, or all slots) is clear from the first line alone.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states the prerequisite (the EMI module must be active via select_instrument_module) and enumerates the mutually exclusive invocation modes: slot+points/enabled/delete, versus all_off or delete_all alone without a slot. An agent can determine the correct call shape without guessing.

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