Skip to main content
Glama
SorataYang

Qiao-MCP

by SorataYang

get_analysis_results

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve bridge analysis results for deformation, force, stress, or reaction by specifying result type, element IDs, and construction stage. Filter by load case and paginate for efficient querying.

Instructions

    Get analysis results from the bridge model (获取分析结果).

    Args:
        result_type: Type of result to retrieve (结果类型):
            'deformation' (变形), 'force' (内力), 'stress' (应力), 'reaction' (反力)
        ids: Node/Element IDs to query (查询的节点/单元编号)
        stage_id: Construction stage (施工阶段): -1=operation(运营), 0=envelope(包络),
                  n=stage n (第n阶段)
        case_name: Load case name for operation stage (运营阶段荷载工况名).
                   For stage_id=-1, the tool automatically adds "ST:" prefix if missing.
                   (运营阶段查询时工具会自动添加 "ST:" 前缀)
        limit: Max items per page, default 100 (单页条数上限)
        offset: Pagination offset (翻页偏移)

    Returns:
        Deformation results (变形): List of dicts with keys
            {node_id, dx, dy, dz, rx, ry, rz} (lowercase, in meters/radians)
        Force results (内力): List of dicts with keys
            {element_id, force_i: {Fx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, Mz}, force_j: {...}}
            (nested structure, forces in kN, moments in kN·m)
        Stress/Reaction: Similar nested dict structures
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsNo
limitNo
offsetNo
stage_idNo
case_nameNo
result_typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial operational detail: automatic 'ST:' prefix insertion, pagination behavior, physical units (meters/radians, kN, kN·m), lower/upper-case key conventions, and the nested force_i/force_j structure. This materially reduces agent surprise beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The Args/Returns layout is well structured and front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose statement. Each block delivers necessary operational information without fluff, and the bilingual repetitions are compact and aid disambiguation.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, units, pagination, and return shapes for deformation and force results. However, the stress and reaction return structures are only dismissed as 'similar nested dict structures', leaving an agent without exact keys for two of the four supported result types.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: allowed result_type values, node/element ids, stage_id semantics with -1/0/n meanings, case_name auto-prefix behavior, and limit/offset pagination. This is a strong example of description carrying the parameter-documentation burden.

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 clearly states the tool returns analysis results from the bridge model and enumerates the available result types (deformation, force, stress, reaction), so the core purpose is unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this generic retrieval tool from sibling specialized result tools such as get_tendon_loss_results, get_live_load_results, or get_special_results.

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?

The parameter documentation gives useful contextual guidance about result_type and stage_id, making the intended use reasonably clear. It never says when to prefer this tool over sibling result-querying tools, nor does it provide any exclusions, so an agent must infer the boundary from tool names and the result_type list.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SorataYang/qiao-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server