Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CST-MCP

CST-MCP

by woson-L
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

cst_write_summary_json_tool

Write a JSON file summarizing CST solver settings, frequency range, S11, and efficiencies to a chosen path for result reporting and verification.

Instructions

Write a single JSON file summarising solver, frequency range, S11 and efficiencies.

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": {
      "out_path": "<out_path>"
    },
    "name": "cst_write_summary_json_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
out_pathYes
target_frequencyNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a JSON file is written and what it summarizes, but does not state whether an existing file is overwritten, whether a CST session must be connected, what permissions are needed, or any other operational constraints.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to gaps addressed in other dimensions.

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?

The tool has no annotations, 0% input schema description coverage, and is a write operation, yet the description does not compensate with parameter or behavioral details. While an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the input side and usage context remain under-specified.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema does not explain out_path or target_frequency. The description mentions none of the two parameters, leaving their purpose and expected values completely undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('a single JSON file') along with the summary contents (solver, frequency range, S11, efficiencies). It clearly distinguishes the tool from read-only siblings like cst_read_result_tool and cst_read_s11_tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 states what the tool does but offers no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., cst_export_ascii_tool, cst_export_touchstone_tool, or cst_read_result_tool). No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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