Avizo MCP Server

by songyb1998

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

launch_avizo

Launch Avizo or Amira executables with optional command-line arguments, job names, and wait modes to automate scientific visualization workflows.

Instructions

Launch an Avizo executable with optional command-line arguments.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "launch_avizo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`executable`	No	avizo
`args`	No
`wait`	No
`timeout_sec`	No
`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, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions launching with arguments but does not disclose whether the launch is synchronous, what happens with the wait parameter, or what errors might occur. The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description.

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 sentence, which is concise but too minimal. It could be longer to include key details without becoming verbose. The sentence is clear and front-loaded with the action.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, return values, or typical usage patterns. The sibling tools indicate a rich ecosystem, but this description provides no context on how this tool fits in.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 5 parameters. It only says 'optional command-line arguments' but does not explain 'executable' enum, 'args', 'wait', 'timeout_sec', or 'job_name'. The parameters are completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 it launches an Avizo executable with optional arguments, and the verb 'launch' with 'executable' is specific. However, it could be more precise about what the tool does (e.g., whether it returns a job ID). It distinguishes from siblings which are about scripts and installation.

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 like 'run_avizo_python' or 'run_hx_script'. The description does not specify prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

Deploy Server