Alchemist-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

run_mace_pipeline

Generate a fail-closed dry-run plan for MACE MLIP pipelines, returning execution commands and statuses without launching MACE.

Instructions

Return a fail-closed MACE dry-run plan; never launches MACE.

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": "run_mace_pipeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mode`	No	zero-shot
`seed`	No
`dry_run`	No
`execute`	No
`output_dir`	No	artifacts/mace
`dataset_path`	No	data/incoming
`python_executable`	No	.venv/bin/python

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.1Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait: fail-closed semantics and that MACE is never launched. However, it does not say what happens if execute=true or dry_run=false, whether any filesystem writes occur, or what auth/environment requirements exist for the python_executable path.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key constraint front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably over-concise rather than wasteful, but nothing in it is expendable.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but a 7-parameter mutation-adjacent tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation leaves the agent materially under-informed about invocation and side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. Fields like mode, seed, python_executable, and the dry_run/execute pair are left with no meaning, types, or allowed values beyond their bare names.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('MACE dry-run plan'), and the phrase 'never launches MACE' distinguishes it from the execution-oriented siblings run_runner2_pipeline and get_pipeline_status. It falls short of 5 because 'MACE' is never defined and the dry-run only framing leaves the role of the execute/dry_run parameters ambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no named alternatives despite seven sibling tools covering pipeline status, DFT dataset work, and a second pipeline runner. The agent must infer selection criteria entirely on its own.

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

Deploy Server