Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kanysh Basic

Kanysh Basic

by almukhanomr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

sensitivity_tornado

Runs one-at-a-time regional sensitivity analyses from explicit low/high parameter bounds and override or multiplier settings, then reports checked variants, failures, baseline assumptions, and tornado results.

Instructions

One-at-a-time regional sensitivity using explicit user low/high values and override/multiplier meanings. All variants are independently checked; report and tornado PNG preserve failures and baseline assumptions. No probability is inferred from deterministic bounds. Explicit cell-scenario work budget.

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": "sensitivity_tornado"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations cover only the generic safety profile (read-only=false, destructive=false, open-world=false); they say nothing about the run itself. The description adds genuine context — every variant is independently checked, failures and baseline assumptions survive into the report and tornado PNG, and a cell x scenario work budget caps the run — but says nothing about job lifecycle, runtime, or what a partial failure returns.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four short sentences with no filler, and the defining trait (one-at-a-time on explicit bounds) is front-loaded. Some sentences are telegraphic fragments ('Explicit cell-scenario work budget.'), which costs a little readability but not correctness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with a very large nested request and no output schema, the description covers what is produced (report plus tornado PNG) and the deterministic semantics. It leaves gaps on prerequisites, execution policy defaults, and submit-vs-return behavior that an agent would need before calling confidently.

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 coverage is 100% and the nested request schema documents low/high, mode, field enums and max_cell_scenario_evaluations in detail. The description's 'explicit user low/high values and override/multiplier meanings' and 'explicit cell-scenario work budget' merely restate schema content rather than adding format or interaction rules, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the analysis type (one-at-a-time regional sensitivity) and states that it operates on explicit user low/high bounds, which distinguishes it clearly from a probabilistic sweep. It stops short of naming the sibling it contrasts with (uncertainty_monte_carlo), so an agent must infer that routing from the 'no probability is inferred' line.

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?

'No probability is inferred from deterministic bounds' implicitly signals when to prefer this over probabilistic alternatives, but the condition is never stated explicitly and no alternative tool is named. There is also no guidance on prerequisites such as parameters_confirmed or the work-budget ceiling that would block a call.

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