Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Avizo MCP Server

Avizo MCP Server

by songyb1998
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_python_script

Create a Python script in the Avizo MCP work directory to automate Python runs within Avizo. Specify script content, optionally set job name and filename.

Instructions

Create a Python script under the MCP work directory for Avizo Python runs.

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": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "create_python_script"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes
job_nameNo
filenameNoscript.py

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a Python script' without mentioning side effects (e.g., overwrites existing file if filename exists), permission requirements, or what happens on failure. This is minimal transparency.

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 description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, extreme conciseness compromises completeness. A 4 reflects efficient structure but not necessarily sufficient content.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Despite having an output schema and 3 parameters (1 required), the description omits return value context, parameter explanations, and usage scenarios. This is severely incomplete for an agent to use correctly, especially with 0% schema coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameter: content (what it should contain), job_name (when to use), or filename (default and validation). Adding no parameter meaning leaves the agent guessing.

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 tool creates a Python script under the MCP work directory for Avizo Python runs. It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Python script'), and the context differentiates it from sibling tools like create_hx_script and create_python_script_object.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., create_python_script_object) or when not to use it. Lacks context about prerequisites, such as requiring Avizo to be installed or the script being runnable via run_avizo_python.

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