Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kanysh Basic

Kanysh Basic

by almukhanomr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

simulation_deck_run

Run a supplied ECLIPSE-format .DATA deck and its INCLUDE files in OPM Flow exactly as provided, then retrieve simulation results and optional reference comparisons.

Instructions

Run the user's own ECLIPSE-format .DATA deck (with its INCLUDE files) in OPM Flow, exactly as supplied: no deck generation or defaults. Linux natively, Windows via the 'kanysh-opm' WSL2 distribution set up by kanysh-basic setup-opm; SIMULATOR_UNAVAILABLE explains setup when absent. Returns job_id; results: summary (Parquet), SMSPEC/UNSMRY, PRT/DBG logs, field totals; optional comparison with a user reference SMSPEC (e.g. ECLIPSE) at an explicit tolerance. Cancellable.

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": "simulation_deck_run"
  }
}

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds substantial context beyond that: async job_id return, the exact result artifacts produced (Parquet summary, SMSPEC/UNSMRY, PRT/DBG logs, field totals), the optional reference comparison, and that the run is cancellable.

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?

The operation and its as-supplied constraint are front-loaded, and the platform/setup and output clauses follow in a sensible order. It is dense and semicolon-packed with no wasted sentences, though the platform/setup detail could be trimmed without loss.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For an async, nested-schema execution tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters: how the job is launched, what is returned, what files are published, platform prerequisites, and cancellability. Request IDs come from documented sibling tools referenced in the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema for the reference option ('optional comparison with a user reference SMSPEC (e.g. ECLIPSE) at an explicit tolerance') and reinforces the raise-only, as-supplied contract on path handling.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: run the user's own ECLIPSE-format .DATA deck in OPM Flow. The clause 'exactly as supplied: no deck generation or defaults' distinguishes it from deck-generating siblings such as model_build or simulation_submit, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear conditions: only for a user-supplied deck, Linux natively and Windows only via the 'kanysh-opm' WSL2 distribution, with SIMULATOR_UNAVAILABLE signalling missing setup. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g. simulation_submit) for cases where the deck should be generated instead.

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