Kratos MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

project_set_setting

Update or append configuration values in ProjectParameters.json by JSON Pointer; missing intermediate objects are created, and stages can be targeted.

Instructions

Set (or add) any value in a ProjectParameters.json by JSON Pointer, e.g. pointer '/solver_settings/time_stepping/time_step' value 0.05, or '/processes/loads_process_list/-' to append a whole process block to a list. Missing intermediate objects are created when create=true. Returns the previous value. For multi-stage files pass stage (pointer relative to its stage_settings). The file is rewritten atomically.

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": {
      "parameters_file": "<parameters_file>",
      "pointer": "<pointer>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "project_set_setting"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`stage`	No
`value`	Yes
`create`	No
`pointer`	Yes
`parameters_file`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.9.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that missing intermediate objects are created when create=true, that the file is rewritten atomically, and that the previous value is returned. It omits permission/auth requirements and failure behavior, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource, then progressively details examples, flags, and return behavior. Dense but every sentence earns its place; the wording is slightly run-on but not padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers mutation semantics, atomicity, and return value, and an output schema exists so returns need not be over-explained. Missing only parameters_file semantics and any auth/error context.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: pointer (JSON Pointer syntax with examples), value, create (creates intermediates), and stage (pointer relative to its stage_settings). Only parameters_file is left without explicit meaning, a minor gap in an otherwise strong compensation.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Set (or add) any value in a ProjectParameters.json by JSON Pointer') and gives two concrete pointer/value examples, including an append case. It is clearly distinct from siblings like project_get_setting and project_delete_setting without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied through worked examples (single value, list append) and the create/stage flags, so an agent can infer the mechanics. However, it never states when to prefer this generic setter over specialized siblings such as project_add_process, project_update_solver, or project_update_process, nor when-not to use it.

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

Deploy Server