sima

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

write_specs

Creates per-series specification files for vector VARMA analysis, defining transformation, differencing, harmonics, and mean settings before joint model estimation.

Instructions

N0v — ROUTE V from raw data (docs/STUDY-raw-entry.md): the vector first, as Tiao and Box (1981). No univariate models: each series gets a fue .inp with ONLY its characterization — lambda, d, D or harmonics, the mean when d = D = 0 — in out_dir (default <data>_sima/), and the ladder session opens on them (the guion goes on).

Then: run_gate (it certifies the cast; the diagonal here is white noise, or a random walk for d = 1, not a yardstick), canonical_analysis and identify_matrices' method 1 (R_k, S_k, Tiao and Box's M(l)) on the vector. estimate(p, q) in this route writes each series' spec with a FREE AR(p)/MA(q) of its own and fits the full VARMA(p, q): the diagonal is estimated with the cross terms. evaluate compares it with univariate models built by route U's builder, for the yardstick only. Route V writes no .pre for the system: its estimates are rows of the system, not univariate optima.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "write_specs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`out_dir`	No
`overwrite`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions that the tool writes .inp files in out_dir and that route V writes no .pre for the system, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not explain permissions, overwrite behavior, error handling, or what happens to existing files. The 'overwrite' parameter is ignored entirely, leaving key side-effect behavior undisclosed.

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?

The description is long, dense, and front-loads an opaque label ('N0v — ROUTE V') instead of the core action. It references many sibling tools and theory, making it hard to extract the essential purpose. Multiple sentences could be trimmed or reorganized for clarity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly. It omits details on the required 'name' parameter, overwrite behavior, and the relationship between write_specs and the subsequent route steps. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 3 parameters (name, out_dir, overwrite) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions out_dir (default <data>_sima/) but says nothing about the required 'name' parameter or the 'overwrite' flag. This leaves two of three parameters completely undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description is dense with domain jargon and route references; the core action (writing .inp specification files per series) appears only in the middle: 'each series gets a fue .inp with ONLY its characterization.' It does not start with a clear verb+resource, so an agent must infer that write_specs creates specification files, not something else. Sibling differentiation is present via route V vs route U, but embedded in text.

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?

The description names route V and contrasts it with route U ('evaluate compares it with univariate models built by route U's builder, for the yardstick only'), which implies when to use this tool. However, the guidance is tightly coupled with a sequence of other tools (run_gate, estimate, etc.) and does not directly state 'call write_specs when you need to generate per-series spec files from raw data.' The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.