salome-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

check_salome_status

Verifies if the SALOME bridge is reachable and an active study exists. Returns host/port, ping message, and study metadata for environment readiness.

Instructions

Standard health check for bridge accessibility and active study.

Returns host/port, reachability, ping message, and study metadata when available.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_salome_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data fields, indicating a read-only status check with no side effects. However, it does not mention error behavior, required permissions, or what happens when the bridge is unreachable, leaving some transparency gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids fluff and clearly lists the expected return items.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple, parameterless health-check tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and notes 'when available' for study metadata, handling variability. It could add a use-case hint (e.g., initial connectivity check), but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description appropriately avoids parameter details since none exist. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param information.

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 clearly states the tool performs a 'standard health check' for bridge accessibility and active study, listing specific return fields (host/port, reachability, ping message, study metadata). It provides a clear verb and resource, and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ping_salome or get_study_info, the scope is evident from the combined output.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ping_salome or get_study_info. It only says 'standard health check', which implies general use but lacks clear context or exclusions.

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