Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vtkapi-mcp

vtkapi-mcp

by patrickoleary
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

vtk_get_method_signature

Retrieve the canonical method signature for any VTK class to confirm method existence and parameter types. Resolves API hallucination by providing accurate signature information.

Instructions

Return only the canonical signature for a specific method of a VTK class (minimal payload)

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": {
      "class_name": "<class_name>",
      "method_name": "<method_name>"
    },
    "name": "vtk_get_method_signature"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
class_nameYesVTK class name (e.g., 'vtkSphereSource')
method_nameYesMethod name whose signature should be returned (e.g., 'GetOutput')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a lightweight, read-only operation returning a signature, but does not disclose specifics like rate limits, authentication needs, or the exact format of the returned signature.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, though it lacks explicit organization. It is concise but could add a brief note on return format.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It states the purpose and payload size, but omits details about the signature format, which may be inferred from the tool name.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only hinting at the return being canonical and minimal.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Return', the resource 'canonical signature for a specific method of a VTK class', and differentiates from siblings like vtk_get_method_doc and vtk_get_method_info by noting 'minimal payload', making it distinct.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vtk_get_method_info or vtk_get_method_doc. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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