Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HydroStar MCP

HydroStar MCP

by lightninnng
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_rao

Read-only

Reads complete validated RAO arrays for a hydrodynamic case, returning amplitude values in original units and phase values in degrees.

Instructions

Read complete validated RAO arrays, original amplitude unit and phase values (degrees).

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": {
      "case_id": "<case_id>"
    },
    "name": "read_rao"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dofNoheave
case_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description need not repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that the returned arrays are complete and validated and that amplitude units and phase values are original and in degrees, but it does not describe error conditions or data availability constraints.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The phrase 'original amplitude unit' is slightly awkward, but the sentence remains efficient and informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail, and it does state the returned data types adequately. However, the complete absence of parameter semantics leaves a meaningful gap for a tool that requires a case identifier and accepts a DOF selector.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage for both parameters, and the description does not mention either parameter. Neither 'case_id' nor 'dof' is explained, so the description provides no semantic help for calling the tool correctly.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read complete validated RAO arrays,' and clarifies that original amplitude units and phase values in degrees are returned. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling case-lifecycle tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites. The word 'Read' implies retrieval, but the description does not say under what conditions to call it or what it is not for.

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