nonmem-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

parse_psn_results

Extract and structure results from PsN output directories for VPC or bootstrap analyses without requiring PsN/NONMEM installation.

Instructions

Parse results from an existing PsN output directory (VPC or bootstrap). No PsN/NONMEM installation needed.

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": {
      "results_dir": "<results_dir>"
    },
    "name": "parse_psn_results"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`results_dir`	Yes	Path to PsN output directory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the standalone nature (no installation required) and input constraints (VPC/bootstrap only). However, it fails to state whether the tool is read-only, what format it returns (JSON, tables, files?), or error conditions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with zero waste: first states core purpose, second states the key deployment constraint. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema exists, the description should ideally characterize the return value (parsed data structure, file content, etc.). It adequately covers input requirements but leaves a gap regarding output format and behavioral side effects.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by constraining 'results_dir' to contain 'VPC or bootstrap' results specifically, providing semantic context beyond the schema's generic 'Path to PsN output directory'.

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 states specific verb ('Parse'), resource ('results from an existing PsN output directory'), and scope ('VPC or bootstrap'). The 'existing' qualifier and specific result types distinguish it from sibling execution tools like execute_psn_bootstrap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'No PsN/NONMEM installation needed' provides an implicit usage guideline (use when software isn't installed locally). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives like get_run_results or read_lst_file for different parsing scenarios.

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