Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kanysh Basic

Kanysh Basic

by almukhanomr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

simulation_snapshot

Extract a 2D slice from a simulation result artifact at a chosen report step, axis, field, and slice index to inspect reservoir behavior.

Instructions

simulation_snapshot

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_snapshot"
  }
}

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

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds nothing: it doesn't say this appears to launch a job (execution policy, idempotency_key, timeout_seconds, retries), what it produces, or whether artifacts are persisted. Even with the lower bar set by annotations, the silence on job semantics is a real gap.

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 is not concise, it is under-specified; there is no front-loaded statement of purpose. Length is not the issue but rather that no sentence earns a place because none exists.

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?

This is a complex tool with a deeply nested request object, execution policy knobs, and no output schema, yet the description explains none of the return value, job-versus-inline behavior, or prerequisites. Far too little for an agent to call it correctly from the description alone.

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 (field, axis, index, result ref, execution policy) is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself contributes nothing beyond that, but the schema carries the burden adequately.

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 Guidelines2/5

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

No indication of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (simulation_results, result_preview, scene_show, results_export) covers the alternative case. Usage must be inferred entirely from the schema's field/axis/index parameters.

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