Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kanysh Basic

Kanysh Basic

by almukhanomr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

regional_volumes

Compute per-region STOIIP and GIIP volumes from explicit contacts, PVT and residual saturations, with optional polygon selection and saturation-height tables, returning a report with independent integral checks.

Instructions

Explicit, user-confirmed regional OWC/GOC oil/free-gas scenarios with Bo/Bg and residual phase saturations; optional polygon whole-cell corner-mean selection and saturation-height table or Leverett J with all parameters from user. Returns report with separate STOIIP/GIIP and independent determinant/ConvexHull integral checks. Positive-up metric Z. No field constants or saturation equilibrium are inferred.

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": "regional_volumes"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the burden largely remains on prose. The description adds real behavior: separate STOIIP/GIIP volumes, independent determinant vs ConvexHull integral cross-checks, positive-up Z convention, and that no field constants or saturation equilibrium are inferred. It does not mention job submission/async polling despite the idempotency_key parameter, which is the main remaining gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two sentences only, which is lean for a schema this large, and the return-value sentence is front-loaded with the important checks. However, the first sentence is a run-on and the 'never inferred / all parameters from user / explicit, user-confirmed' idea is stated three times, diluting density.

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?

With a fully documented nested schema and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials an agent needs: what inputs must be user-confirmed, the Z sign convention, and what the report contains. Missing is only operational context about the job lifecycle and validation_status transitions, which are partly covered by schema fields.

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 the nested RegionCase fields are exhaustively documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes a few high-value items (Bo/Bg, residual phase saturations, corner-mean whole-cell polygon selection, table vs Leverett J, positive-up Z) but adds no syntax or usage detail beyond what the schema already carries.

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 states a concrete resource and computation: regional OWC/GOC oil/free-gas scenarios producing a report with separate STOIIP/GIIP. An agent can tell it computes volumetrics from explicit per-region contacts/PVT/saturations, but it never names a sibling (e.g. volumetrics_calculate, scenarios_run) to distinguish scope, and the leading phrase is a noun stack rather than a verb.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Explicit, user-confirmed ... all parameters from user' and 'parameters_confirmed' semantics signal this is the path when the user supplies every contact/saturation value and no field constants are to be inferred. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over volumetrics_calculate, scenarios_run, or sensitivity_tornado, and no prerequisites beyond confirmation.

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