Skip to main content
Glama

generate_database_from_template

Create .dbc database skeletons from clean-room, J1939, CANopen CiA301, or UDS/ISO-TP templates to start CAN projects from a defined structure.

Instructions

Generate a clean-room baseline, J1939, CANopen CiA301, or UDS/ISO-TP skeleton .dbc from scratch.

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": {
      "output_path": "<output_path>",
      "template_type": "<template_type>"
    },
    "name": "generate_database_from_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNo
baudrateNo
node_namesNo
output_pathYes
template_typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It reveals that the tool creates a .dbc skeleton and lists template families, but it does not state that it writes a file, whether existing files are overwritten, what dry_run changes, or what permissions or side effects apply.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to identifying the action, output format, and template variants.

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?

For a five-parameter file-generating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too thin. It omits overwrite behavior, dry-run semantics, baudrate meaning, node naming, and when this tool should be chosen over conversion or database-editing siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description should compensate strongly. It partially explains template_type by naming several template families, but it says nothing about output_path, baudrate, node_names, or dry_run.

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 states a specific verb and resource: generate a .dbc skeleton from a template. It enumerates template families (clean-room baseline, J1939, CANopen CiA301, UDS/ISO-TP), which makes the tool distinguishable from general conversion siblings, though it does not name the closest alternative like convert_database_format.

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 phrase 'from scratch' implies this is for creating a new database rather than converting an existing one, which provides some usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use rules, and no named alternatives such as convert_database_format.

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