Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kanysh Basic

Kanysh Basic

by almukhanomr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

seismic_slice

Extract a 2D slice from a seismic volume at a chosen inline, crossline, or sample index to inspect subsurface data for interpretation and quality checks.

Instructions

seismic_slice

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_slice"
  }
}

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 only give a generic profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds nothing — yet the schema implies this dispatches a compute job (idempotency_key returning an existing job, execution placement/timeout/retries). The description should disclose that this is a job-producing, potentially expensive computation, and it does not.

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?

It is not verbose, but it is under-specified rather than concise: a single token restating the tool name conveys no information and has no front-loaded purpose statement.

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 nested-object, execution-policy-bearing computation tool with no output schema, the description explains nothing an agent needs: what a slice is, what axis/index selection means, whether a job id is returned, or how long it takes. The rich schema only partially compensates.

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 'request' object fully documents axis enum, index bounds, volume {id, revision}, and the execution policy. The description adds no semantics of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this versus seismic_inspect, seismic_attribute, or seismic_generate, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a volume artifact id/revision from an earlier tool.

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