Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kanysh Basic

Kanysh Basic

by almukhanomr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

development_rank

Ranks development scenarios by comparing result artifacts or ensembles across metrics, dates, and constraints, using maximize/minimize direction to identify preferred cases.

Instructions

development_rank

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "development_rank"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesTool arguments object (all fields documented; Z is positive upward).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, closed-world, non-idempotent job-creating call. The description adds nothing on top of that — not that it submits a job, not whether it is async, not what 'allow_partial' or 'constraints' mean behaviorally. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the single token repeats the identifier and front-loads no usable information. Nothing in the string earns its place.

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

Completeness1/5

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

This is a complex tool: a nested request object with execution policy, metric constraints, ensemble-vs-results exclusivity, idempotency keys, and up to 10 comparison artifacts, with no output schema. A one-word description leaves an agent unable to tell what the tool produces or how ranking output is structured.

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% and every nested field (dates, metric, results, ensemble, direction, execution, constraints, allow_partial, idempotency_key) carries its own description, so the schema carries the parameter burden entirely. The description contributes nothing, which lands at the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, no prerequisites (project_id, artifact ids from earlier tools), and no mention of alternatives such as scenarios_compare, simulation_compare, or ensemble_compare that an agent would need to choose between.

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