Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kanysh Basic

Kanysh Basic

by almukhanomr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

scenarios_compare

Compare simulation result sets or an ensemble by chosen metric and dates for a project, rank outcomes at a report date, and keep partial failures visible.

Instructions

scenarios_compare

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": "scenarios_compare"
  }
}

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

D1.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which tells the agent this mutates state and creates a job, but the description adds no behavioral context at all — no mention of job submission, partial-failure handling, or resource cost. There is no contradiction, but the description contributes nothing beyond the structured flags.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

There is no sentence to be concise about — a single identifier token provides no front-loading, no structure, and no information. This is under-specification, not conciseness.

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?

For a tool with a deep nested schema, an exclusive results/ensemble branch, an execution policy block, and an idempotency key, the description should explain the compare workflow and the mutual exclusion. None of that appears, even though the rich schema mitigates some of the burden.

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%, so the nested request object (project_id, results vs ensemble exclusivity, execution policy, allow_partial, idempotency_key) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing on top, which is the baseline-3 case for high-coverage schemas.

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?

No when-to-use guidance whatsoever. Siblings such as simulation_compare, ensemble_compare, and volumes_reconcile exist, and nothing indicates how scenarios_compare differs from them or when an agent should pick this one.

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