Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ecuworkbench

ecuworkbench

by woulgar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

capabilities

Read-onlyIdempotent

List supported formats, file limits, and unavailable ECU operations before inspecting or comparing tune files offline.

Instructions

List supported formats, file limits and unavailable ECU operations.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "capabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only what the response covers, and even that is largely redundant with the existing output schema. With the annotation bar met, a middle score is appropriate.

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 tight sentence with the verb front-loaded and the three return categories enumerated. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The only missing piece is guidance on when the agent should reach for it, which is a usage rather than completeness gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and requires no compensation.

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 ("List") and enumerates the three things returned: supported formats, file limits, and unavailable ECU operations. This is clearly a capability-discovery tool, distinct in subject matter from the tune/log tools in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The phrase "unavailable ECU operations" faintly implies a pre-flight check role, but the description never says to call this before attempting an operation or in what situation an agent should prefer it over inspecting a tune. Usage must be inferred.

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