Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kanysh Basic

Kanysh Basic

by almukhanomr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ensemble_run

Run bulk reservoir simulations across multiple property realizations and schedules with configurable execution settings, supporting confirmed case counts and resume options.

Instructions

ensemble_run

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": "ensemble_run"
  }
}

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

D1.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, but the description adds nothing about what is created or mutated, that jobs are submitted asynchronously, how the expected_case_count is enforced, or how idempotency keys behave. All behavioral burden falls on the schema, and the description contributes zero.

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?

The description is a single bare token rather than a concise summary. It is not verbose but severely under-specified, which the scoring treats as a conciseness/structure failure for a tool of this complexity.

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 nested mutation tool that starts an ensemble run across up to 10 realizations and 10 schedules, with no output schema and no annotations covering semantics. A name-only description is completely inadequate for an agent to decide to call it or to sequence it after ensemble_plan and the artifact-producing imports.

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%, including the nested request object, execution policy, artifact references, and idempotency key. Per the baseline rule, the schema already carries full parameter meaning and the description adds nothing further, so a 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose2/5

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 use this tool versus ensemble_plan (likely the prerequisite planner) or scenarios_run, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the entire call sequence from parameter descriptions inside the schema.

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