Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FDTD Lumerical MCP

FDTD Lumerical MCP

by pcmdagonger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

script_eval

Evaluate Lumerical script code within the active FDTD simulation session to execute commands and retrieve data.

Instructions

Evaluate Lumerical script code in the active FDTD session.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "script_eval"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes
return_varsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, destructiveness, security implications, or error behavior for script evaluation, which could be destructive.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with key action and context. However, it is too brief and omits essential details.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, absence of annotations, and sibling tools like script_run_file, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return behavior (even though output schema exists but is not described) or limitations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds nothing about the 'code' and 'return_vars' parameters. Fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool evaluates Lumerical script code in the active FDTD session, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like script_run_file by implying evaluation of inline code vs. file execution.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as script_run_file. No prerequisites or context provided for successful usage.

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