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

uni-t-uts-mcp

by Reid-n0rc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

set_limit_line

Idempotent

Create or edit a limit line on a spectrum analyzer to test a trace against upper or lower limits, setting points, margins and display, and reporting any values the instrument rejected.

Instructions

Create or edit a limit line. Give any of: displayed, type (upper/lower), trace, margin_db and margin_enabled, and points (replaces the whole point list; 1 to 10 points in ascending frequency order, equal frequencies make a vertical step, each with frequency_hz, amplitude_dbm and optional connected). The line 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_limit_line"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lineNoLimit line number, 1 to 6 (the 1000-series models have 1 to 4)
typeNoupper: the trace must stay below the line; lower: above
traceNoTrace number (1-6) to test against the line
pointsNoReplace the whole point list: 1 to 10 points in ascending frequency order (equal frequencies make a vertical step)
displayedNoShow the line on the display
margin_dbNoMargin in dB, -40 to 40
instrumentNoWhich instrument to use (a name from list_instruments). Default: the `default` instrument, or the only one configured
margin_enabledNoMargin on/off

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 most of the burden and does well: it discloses that points replaces the entire point list, that the line is re-read after writing, and that rejected values surface in a 'warnings' field. That post-write verification and partial-acceptance behavior is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by parameters and then the post-write behavior. It is dense but readable; a few clauses duplicate the schema, which is minor waste rather than confusion.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: partial-update semantics, destructiveness of the points field, and the warnings return channel. The main gap is that it never mentions the line or instrument selectors, though both are fully described in the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates it (1–10 ascending points, equal frequencies make a vertical step, upper/lower meaning). It adds the useful 'replaces the whole point list' framing but omits the line-number and instrument parameters entirely, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 description opens with a specific verb+resource pair, 'Create or edit a limit line', which immediately tells an agent what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling set_emi_limit_line, leaving the agent to guess which limit-line family applies.

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?

'Give any of: ...' implies partial-update usage and that all fields are optional, which is useful context on how to call it. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to the sibling get_limit_line / delete_limit_line / set_emi_limit_line tools that an agent would need to choose correctly.

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