Avizo MCP Server

by songyb1998

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

create_python_script_object

Creates a skeleton .pyscro script object and its .rc registration file for Amira-Avizo automation workflows.

Instructions

Create an Amira-Avizo .pyscro script-object skeleton and matching .rc registration.

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": {
      "module_name": "<module_name>"
    },
    "name": "create_python_script_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`module_name`	Yes
`script_body`	No
`category`	No	Python Scripts
`primary_type`	No	HxUniformScalarField3
`job_name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses that it creates a skeleton and registration, but does not explain side effects like file overwriting, idempotency, or environmental dependencies. The behavioral burden is on the description, which is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence without extraneous content. However, for a tool with 5 parameters, it is too brief and lacks structure to effectively convey necessary information.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema shown (though `has output schema: true` is indicated), the description does not explain return values or completeness of the tool's behavior. It is incomplete for a moderately complex tool.

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 does not mention any of the 5 parameters (module_name, script_body, category, primary_type, job_name). It fails to provide meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a `.pyscro` script-object skeleton and `.rc` registration. The verb and resource are specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like `create_python_script` or `create_hx_script`, though the unique file extension implies differentiation.

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. It lacks context such as prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server