PLECS-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Plecs Check

plecs_check

Runs PLECS simulations or analyses and evaluates pass/fail assertions on signal, time, and analysis metrics to verify model behavior.

Instructions

Run simulations/analyses and evaluate pass/fail assertions.

Check examples::

{"type": "signal", "index": 0, "metric": "rms", "op": ">", "value": 10}
{"type": "time", "metric": "stop", "op": ">=", "value": 1e-3}
{"type": "analysis", "metric": "phase_margin_deg", "op": ">", "value": 45}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`checks`	Yes
`options`	No
`model_name`	Yes
`analysis_name`	No
`analysis_options`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies that simulations/analyses are run and assertions evaluated, but does not state side effects, permissions, execution characteristics, or whether model state is modified.

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 description is front-loaded with a single clear sentence and then supplies compact, relevant examples. Every part of the text contributes to understanding the check format, with no wasted prose.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description omits essential context for a five-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations. It does not explain the roles of model_name, analysis_name, analysis_options, or options, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling execution and analysis tools.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for five parameters. The examples add useful structure for the 'checks' parameter, but model_name, options, analysis_name, and analysis_options are completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 that the tool runs simulations/analyses and evaluates pass/fail assertions, which is a specific verb-plus-resource purpose. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as plecs_simulate, plecs_analyze, or plecs_validate, leaving ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of plecs_simulate, plecs_analyze, plecs_validate, or other sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the examples of check objects, not by explicit conditions or exclusions.

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