Parses .EIC.aef files and returns a text summary, enabling lipidomics analysis from extracted ion chromatograms without exposing raw matrices.
.EIC.aef ファイルに対応する解析用関数 ファイルを解析し、テキスト要約を返します。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds that the output is a text summary, which matters because no output schema exists. However, it does not disclose file size limits, error behavior for malformed files, or what the summary contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, with the file-type scope stated first and no filler. The phrase 解析用関数 (parsing function) is slightly redundant with the tool name, but it costs little.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read-only parser with no output schema, stating that the output is a text summary covers the main gap. The undefined semantics of an optional file_path defaulting to null, and the absence of any expectations about the file, remain unresolved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single file_path parameter, so the description must supply that meaning. It only implies that a file is involved; it does not say whether the path must be absolute or relative, or what happens when the optional, null-defaulting file_path is omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb (parse) and a specific resource (.EIC.aef files), and adds that the result is a text summary. That separates it from sibling plotting tools such as eic_plot_chromatograms and eic_plot_compounds, although the description does not name those alternatives explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says nothing about when to call this tool rather than eic_plot_chromatograms, eic_search, or the other parsers (pai2_parser, dcl_parser, arf_parser). The intended use is only implied by the file extension.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.