FASTMEAN MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

fastmean_edit_parameters

Updates numeric root .parameter/.param constants in a copied FASTMEAN model, preserving descriptions, bindings, and formulas while rejecting ambiguous or overriding declarations.

Instructions

Update existing numeric root .parameter/.param constants in a new copy.

updates maps exact case-sensitive parameter names to finite numbers/SI values. Only literal spans change; descriptions, component bindings, graph formulas and portable model files are preserved. Expressions, ambiguous declarations and overriding define/global/set names are rejected. Use inspect's root_parameters before editing. This does not run a calculation or a GUI. Pass the inspection's source_sha256 as expected_source_sha256 to reject source changes made between inspection and this request.

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>",
      "updates": "<updates>"
    },
    "name": "fastmean_edit_parameters"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`updates`	Yes
`expected_source_sha256`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare non-readonly/non-destructive/non-idempotent; the description adds substantial context beyond them: edits land in a new copy, only literal spans change, descriptions/component bindings/graph formulas/portable model files are preserved, certain declarations are rejected, and a sha256 guard rejects races between inspection and write. That is precisely the mutation-safety information an agent needs.

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 action and scope, then layered with constraints and workflow in short, informative sentences. Slightly long-winded around rejected names, but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

With annotations present and an output schema covering the return shape, the description supplies the missing operational context: preservation semantics, rejection rules, staleness guard, and side-effect boundaries. The only real omission is clarifying what `path` refers to given the 'new copy' behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load — and it explains `updates` well (exact case-sensitive names mapped to finite numbers/SI values) and fully motivates `expected_source_sha256` as a staleness check. `path` is never explained (source model vs. output copy destination is only inferable from 'in a new copy'), leaving one gap.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and narrowly scoped resource: updating only numeric root `.parameter`/`.param` constants, and explicitly writing to a new copy. The 'root' qualifier and 'literal spans' wording implicitly separate it from edit_values/edit_properties, though it never names a sibling to route against.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow ('Use inspect's root_parameters before editing') and a concrete guard ('Pass the inspection's source_sha256 as expected_source_sha256'). States what input is rejected (expressions, ambiguous declarations, overriding define/global/set names) and what it does not do (no calculation, no GUI), but does not say when to prefer edit_values or edit_properties instead.

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