Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HydroStar MCP

HydroStar MCP

by lightninnng
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

plan_case

Read-only

Validate case configuration, estimate panel counts, and screen wavelength before writing files for hydrodynamic analysis.

Instructions

Validate semantic input, estimate panel counts and screen wavelength before writing files.

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": {
      "config": "<config>"
    },
    "name": "plan_case"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
configYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a non-mutating operation, and the description reinforces that it runs before writing files. It adds that the tool estimates panel counts and screens wavelength, but it does not explain validation scope, failure modes, or screening criteria in more detail.

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 wasted words. It states the main actions compactly.

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?

The tool has a large, complex nested configuration schema and the description is extremely brief. While an output schema and read-only annotation exist, the description does not provide enough guidance about config semantics or planning behavior for an agent to use this tool confidently.

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?

There is one top-level parameter, config, but the description does not describe its expected structure or which nested sections matter. With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the lack of field-level documentation.

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 names specific actions: validating semantic input, estimating panel counts, and screening wavelength before files are written. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish plan_case from nearby siblings such as prepare_case or generate_inputs.

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 'before writing files' implies a pre-write planning/preflight role, giving some usage context. However, it does not state when to choose this over siblings like prepare_case, generate_inputs, or start_case, nor does it describe exclusions.

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