Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HydroStar MCP

HydroStar MCP

by lightninnng
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_reference_forms

Read-only

Retrieve built-in source-informed hull families, feature allocations, and citations to select a reference form and ground hydrodynamic geometry choices.

Instructions

Read built-in source-informed hull families, feature allocation and citations.

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_reference_forms"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that these forms are 'built-in', implying static/read-only reference data rather than user-generated content, which is modestly useful. It says nothing about output shape, but an output schema exists to carry that.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is compact, though the density of unexplained jargon makes it terse rather than clarifying.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema and readOnly annotation, the structural burden is low, but the description leaves the agent unsure what 'hull families', 'feature allocation', and 'citations' actually contain and how this listing relates to the rest of the case-building workflow. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema burden is nil and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter information is needed or missing.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description has a specific verb ('Read') and names concrete resource types ('built-in source-informed hull families, feature allocation and citations'). However, the terminology is highly domain-specific and opaque, and it does not distinguish this listing tool from sibling tools like inspect_geometry_source or make_reference_case.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the discovery step before make_reference_case, which is not stated.

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