Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kanysh Basic

Kanysh Basic

by almukhanomr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

interpretation_save

Save horizon picks as a project interpretation linked to a seismic volume artifact, with an option to supersede a previous revision.

Instructions

interpretation_save

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": "interpretation_save"
  }
}

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

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond them: it does not say what persists, that picks are immutable once written, or how the returned job should be polled. With annotations covering only the safety profile, a bare name leaves the mutation behavior opaque.

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?

One word is technically concise but represents under-specification rather than efficient communication; there is no front-loaded statement of purpose or scope. Length is not the problem, absence of content is.

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 mutating tool with a deeply nested schema (project, volume artifact ref, up to 10,000 picks, execution policy) and no output schema, yet the description explains none of it. An agent cannot tell what the saved artifact is, what validity constraints apply beyond the schema, or what the call returns.

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 (picks, volume ref, execution policy, idempotency_key) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes nothing extra, but it is not required to given the coverage.

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 at all on when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the required volume/project context. An agent must infer everything from 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