Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ecuworkbench

ecuworkbench

by woulgar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

inspect_tune

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read MSQ metadata and raw constants under ECU_WORKBENCH_ROOT to inspect tune data without calibration validation or ECU connection.

Instructions

Read MSQ metadata and raw constants inside ECU_WORKBENCH_ROOT; do not validate calibration.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_tune"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope (ECU_WORKBENCH_ROOT) and a negative constraint (no validation), which is useful context beyond annotations, but doesn't discuss return format or errors. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 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?

Single tight sentence with no filler; the scope and exclusion are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Description supplies scope and the no-validation constraint. Minor gap: no guidance on the 'path' parameter semantics relative to ECU_WORKBENCH_ROOT.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'path' parameter has no description in either schema or description text. The description mentions ECU_WORKBENCH_ROOT which hints at a path domain but doesn't explain the parameter's format or relationship. Baseline 3 given only one parameter with no details added.

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 ('Read') and resource ('MSQ metadata and raw constants') with a scope qualifier (inside ECU_WORKBENCH_ROOT) and an exclusion ('do not validate calibration'). This differentiates it from compare_tunes and summarize_log, though it doesn't name siblings explicitly.

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?

The description implies an inspection use case and explicitly excludes validation, but does not state when to choose this over the sibling tools like compare_tunes or capabilities. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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