Skip to main content
Glama

FERS — structural FEM

Code-check schema

get_check_schema
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the canonical schema for authoring unity (code) checks: the UnityCheckDefinition schema and everything it references, read straight from the solver's OpenAPI, plus a worked EN 1993 example. Call this before add_unity_check. Free.

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": "get_check_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context: the schema is read directly from the solver's OpenAPI, it includes a worked EN 1993 example, and it is free (cost information not present in the annotations).

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource defined first, followed by two short, high-value clauses (OpenAPI source, worked example) and the pruning-relevant 'Free' and 'Call this before add_unity_check' notes. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description states exactly what comes back — the UnityCheckDefinition schema, everything it references, and a worked EN 1993 example — which is more than sufficient for a zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it correctly implies a parameterless retrieval call.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Get') and precise resource ('canonical schema for authoring unity (code) checks: the UnityCheckDefinition schema and everything it references'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_schema by scoping to code/unity checks. An agent can tell what it returns without opening anything else.

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?

'Call this before add_unity_check' gives an explicit ordering condition and names the downstream tool that consumes the result. It does not contrast with the sibling get_schema, which is the one ambiguity an agent might have about which schema tool to call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.