Execute solver runs to obtain S11/Sij parameters with key metrics (min dB, bandwidth) for evaluating port responses.
Run solver and return structured S11/Sij with metrics (min dB, bandwidth). Solver çalıştırır ve S parametrelerini metriklerle döner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port_in | No | ||
| port_out | No | ||
| timeout_s | No | ||
| max_points | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool invokes a solver and returns metrics, but it does not mention side effects on the project, whether it blocks, what happens on timeout, or dependencies on previously configured ports/solver settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but not efficient: the second sentence is a Turkish translation of the first, adding no new information. The key idea is front-loaded, but the duplicate sentence means not every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both behavior and return value shape. It gives a high-level summary and lists two metrics, but 'structured S11/Sij' is vague, parameters are unexplained, and no prerequisites or failure behavior are mentioned. The definition is only minimally adequate for a 4-parameter workflow tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (port_in, port_out, timeout_s, max_points). The agent receives no meaning beyond the raw parameter names and defaults, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Run solver') and names the output ('structured S11/Sij with metrics (min dB, bandwidth)'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cst_run_simulation or cst_get_s_parameters, because it both runs the solver and returns computed metrics in one action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this workflow versus alternatives such as cst_run_simulation, cst_get_s_parameters, or cst_get_bandwidth. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., ports must exist) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this combined tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.