CST-MCP

by woson-L

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

cst_add_monitor_tool

Add a field monitor for far field, E/H field, power flow, current, or loss in CST Studio Suite simulations.

Instructions

Add a field monitor: far field, E/H field, power flow, current or loss.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "field_type": "<field_type>"
    },
    "name": "cst_add_monitor_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`domain`	No	Frequency
`frequency`	No
`field_type`	Yes
`plane_normal`	No
`plane_position`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a monitor is added and lists monitor categories, but it omits whether the operation mutates project state, what permissions or open-project context are required, and whether it is reversible.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity contributes to the missing parameter and behavior details.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. The output schema means return values need not be described, but the description still leaves key invocation context and parameter semantics undocumented.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 6 parameters, so the description must compensate substantially. It hints at possible values for field_type ('far field, E/H field, power flow, current or loss'), but it says nothing about name, domain, frequency, plane_normal, or plane_position.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Add a field monitor') and lists the supported monitor types. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling monitor-listing tools such as cst_list_monitors_tool.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use when adding a monitor, but it never states prerequisites, when-not-to-use conditions, or related sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server