ccpp-tools-mcp

by jinhyunan

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

list_crane_fittings

Lists fitting keys accepted by dp_segment_liquid and their K basis for pressure drop calculations.

Instructions

List fitting keys accepted by dp_segment_liquid and their K basis.

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": "list_crane_fittings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Default
`method`	Yes
`result`	Yes
`validity`	No	ok
`warnings`	No
`assumptions`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It accurately conveys that the tool returns fitting keys and K basis values, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe any side effects. The behavior is straightforward for a list tool, so this is adequate but not detailed.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states the purpose and the connection to dp_segment_liquid, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the tool's output rather than parameter semantics, as there are no parameters to document.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource: fitting keys accepted by dp_segment_liquid, including their K basis. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dp_segment_liquid itself, which performs pressure drop calculations, and other fluid/pipe tools.

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 implies use for retrieving valid fitting keys for dp_segment_liquid but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. It could be clearer about being a lookup utility for pressure drop calculations, but the connection to dp_segment_liquid provides reasonable context.

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

Deploy Server