Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CST-MCP

CST-MCP

by woson-L
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

cst_export_ascii_tool

Saves a single result tree item as an ASCII or CSV file, enabling external inspection and manual checks of exported CST simulation values.

Instructions

Export one result tree item to an ASCII/CSV file for external checking.

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": {
      "tree_path": "<tree_path>",
      "filename": "<filename>"
    },
    "name": "cst_export_ascii_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoRealImag
filenameYes
tree_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that this writes a file to disk, whether an existing file is overwritten, what 'ASCII/CSV' means for complex data, or any permission/error behavior; for a write-to-disk tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for the amount of undocumented surface it leaves behind.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with zero annotation coverage, 0% schema description coverage, and an unexplained 'mode' parameter, the definition does not give an agent enough to invoke this tool confidently.

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 the description only loosely implies two of the three parameters ('result tree item' → tree_path, 'ASCII/CSV file' → filename). The 'mode' parameter with its RealImag default is never explained, leaving the caller unable to know what values are valid.

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?

States a specific verb (Export), a specific resource (one result tree item), and the output format (ASCII/CSV). It is distinguishable from cst_export_touchstone_tool, though it never names siblings or scope limits explicitly.

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 phrase 'for external checking' gestures at motivation but gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no comparison against alternatives like cst_export_touchstone_tool or cst_read_result_tool that might return the same data.

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