Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
yusong652

itasca-mcp

by yusong652
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

itasca_query_doc

Search ITASCA engine documentation by keyword to find commands, Python APIs, FISH intrinsics, and reference entries, returning matching paths for browsing.

Instructions

Search ITASCA documentation by keywords, like grep; every hit carries a path for itasca_browse_doc.

Without source it searches commands, python_api, fish and reference together, so 'ball pos' shows the FISH intrinsic and the Python method side by side. With source it searches one tree and adds that tree's hints (available categories or namespaces, SDK fallback hints) when nothing matches.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of results (1-20).
queryYesSearch keywords or a name fragment. Examples: 'ball create', 'contact force', 'ball.pos', 'mohr-coulomb', 'zone pore pressure'. Case-insensitive.
sourceNoDocumentation tree to search: 'commands', 'python_api', 'fish' or 'reference'. Omit to search all four at once; each hit is then tagged with its source.
versionNoDocumentation version. Defaults to 9.0 (the current 9.x release); PFC also has 6.0 and 7.0, FLAC and 3DEC have 7.0; 9.0-only engines (MPoint, MassFlow) always resolve at 9.0. Gates commands, fish and reference entries by availability; python_api is a single 9.8 baseline whose docs carry their own availability notes.9.0
softwareYesITASCA engine to query: 'pfc', 'flac', '3dec', 'mpoint', or 'massflow'. Required — there is no default engine.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.11.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does provide useful non-obvious behavior: cross-tree searching, source tagging of hits, and source-specific fallback hints when nothing matches. It does not discuss ranking or exhaustive search semantics, but the output schema and parameter descriptions cover result shape and limits.

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 front-loaded and compact, with three sentences that each carry useful meaning. The phrases about source-specific hints are slightly dense but still readable and purposeful.

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 read-only search tool with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description gives enough behavioral context to call it correctly. It covers keyword search, cross-source behavior, source scoping, and the handoff path to browsing; remaining details are adequately handled by structured fields.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context for source by explaining combined versus single-tree search and fallback hints, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for query, software, version, or limit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: searching ITASCA documentation by keywords. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling itasca_browse_doc by explaining that every hit carries a path for browsing. The grep analogy makes the retrieval model immediately clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly explains the two usage modes: omit source to search all four documentation trees, or provide source to search one tree. The relationship to itasca_browse_doc is implied through hit paths, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer browsing over searching or vice versa.

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