Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LS-PrePost-MCP

LS-PrePost-MCP

by lwz20210407
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

inspect_binout

List LASSO binout branches and variables from a single literal file, and reject incomplete MPP shard sets to prevent unreliable results.

Instructions

List LASSO binout branches/variables from one literal file; reject incomplete MPP shard sets.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_binout"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
branchNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a genuine constraint: it rejects incomplete MPP shard sets and works on a single literal file. However, it omits the output/return shape and any error semantics beyond the MPP rejection, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 waste. The scope and the MPP constraint are packed efficiently, though the compressed phrasing borders on terse.

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?

For a simple two-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It conveys scope and one important edge case (MPP shard rejection) yet says nothing about return values or the optional branch parameter.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only obliquely touches the parameters: "one literal file" hints that path must be a literal path (not a glob/pattern) and "branches/variables" gestures at the branch argument, but neither is defined or formatted.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("LASSO binout branches/variables"), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling extract_binout_curve (extraction vs inspection). It does not explicitly name that sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The scope clause ("from one literal file") implies an inspection scenario, but the agent is not told when to pick this over extract_binout_curve or inspect_d3plot_database.

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