Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kanysh Basic

Kanysh Basic

by almukhanomr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

seismic_import

Import SEG-Y seismic data into a project, matching confirmed CRS, vertical datum, domain, and sample units for validated subsurface analysis.

Instructions

seismic_import

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": "seismic_import"
  }
}

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description contributes nothing beyond that: it does not disclose that the call creates a long-running job, that it consumes a previously uploaded SEG-Y, or that idempotency keys are honored.

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 with zero waste but also zero information; this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loading problem because there is nothing to front-load.

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?

The input is a deep nested SeismicImport object with CRS, datum, domain/unit coupling, byte offsets, and an execution policy block, and there is no output schema. For that complexity the description supplies nothing about the SEG-Y ingest contract, validation rules, 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 (crs, domain, byte offsets, execution policy) is documented with enums and ranges, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no extra meaning, which matches the baseline 3 for fully documented 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus seismic_source_import, dataset_import, or grid_import, nor on prerequisites. The only hint about required predecessors (project_id, upload_id) lives in the schema, not the description.

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