Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
subsea-robotics-survey

subsea-robotics-survey

by tudadada
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

evaluate_cathodic_protection

Assess subsea steel cathodic protection potential readings against DNV-RP-B401 and NACE SP0176 to check polarization adequacy and hydrogen embrittlement (HISC) risk.

Instructions

Evaluates subsea structural steel cathodic protection (CP) potential measurements according to DNV-RP-B401 and NACE SP0176, determining polarization adequacy and hydrogen embrittlement (HISC) risks.

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": {
      "potential_mv_ag_agcl": "<potential_mv_ag_agcl>"
    },
    "name": "evaluate_cathodic_protection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
steel_typeNoMaterial type ('carbon_steel', 'high_strength_steel', 'duplex_stainless'). Default: 'carbon_steel'.carbon_steel
water_temp_cNoAmbient seawater temperature in degrees Celsius. Default: 4.0°C.
potential_mv_ag_agclYesMeasured electrochemical potential in negative millivolts versus Ag/AgCl reference electrode (e.g. -850, -750, -1120).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the evaluation criteria and the risk classes it reports (polarization adequacy, HISC), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about required reference electrode assumptions, handling of out-of-range or invalid potentials, or the shape/limits of the assessment returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the subject, the applicable standards, and the resulting assessment, with acronyms expanded inline. No filler, no repetition of schema content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a stateless evaluation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the standards basis and the two decision outputs an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of describing the assessment structure or edge-case behavior, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (steel_type, water_temp_c, potential_mv_ag_agcl) are already documented with units, defaults, and example values. The description adds standards context but no additional parameter syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (evaluates) plus a precise resource (subsea structural steel cathodic protection potential measurements) and names the governing standards (DNV-RP-B401, NACE SP0176). It also states the outcome produced (polarization adequacy and HISC risk), so an agent knows exactly what this tool computes.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain framing: supply a measured potential and receive an adequacy/HISC assessment. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, though the sibling tools are in entirely different domains (torque, survey coverage) so no routing conflict exists.

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