Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HydroStar MCP

HydroStar MCP

by lightninnng
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

inspect_geometry_source

Read-only

Reads supported geometry source routes or inspects a source file in HS_SOURCE_ROOT, helping verify input geometry before hydrodynamic analysis.

Instructions

Read supported source routes or inspect a source inside HS_SOURCE_ROOT.

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": "inspect_geometry_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description does add one useful constraint, that access is bounded inside HS_SOURCE_ROOT, but it does not say whether paths are relative or absolute, what happens on an out-of-root path, or what 'routes' comprise.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

One short sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity comes at the cost of an undefined term ('supported source routes'), so it is terse rather than efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still missing: what a 'route' is, how 'path' interacts with HS_SOURCE_ROOT, and the no-path listing behavior, which is the core of a two-mode tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'path' parameter is not explained: it is nullable with a null default, and the description only obliquely implies that omitting it enumerates routes while supplying it inspects one. That inference is left to the agent rather than stated.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The verbs 'read' and 'inspect' are present, but the object is jargon: 'supported source routes' is never defined, and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings like inspect_environment or read_rao. An agent can guess it touches geometry source files, but not what a 'route' is.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus inspect_environment, read_rao, or build_geometry. The only hint is the path/none dichotomy implied by 'or', which is not framed as usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools