MIDAS CIVIL NX tools (MIDAS IT Europe)

Load combinations from factors

civil_combinations_quick

Destructive

Writes general load combinations from plain factors, e.g. { name: "ULS1", factors: { "SW": 1.35, "SDL": 1.35, "LM1": 1.5 } } — for hand-picked combinations; for the full code set use ec_combinations_apply / cs454_combinations_apply. Each name is looked up: static load cases (ST), moving-load cases (MV) and existing combinations (CB) are recognised, and a combination made in the same call can be used in a later one; write "CS:" for a construction-stage result, or a prefix when a name is in two places. type: add (default), envelope, abs, srss. Names ≤ 20 characters; a case listed twice is refused (CIVIL NX refuses the whole write). An existing name is refused unless replaceExisting: true. Previews unless apply: true with confirmPlanHash; civil_write_tables_undo reverses it.

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": {
      "combinations": "<combinations>"
    },
    "name": "civil_combinations_quick"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`apply`	No
`combinations`	Yes
`confirmPlanHash`	No
`replaceExisting`	No	Overwrite combinations that already have these names. Only with the user's agreement.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, non-read-only, but the description goes well beyond them: name resolution rules (ST/MV/CB, in-call forward references, CS: prefix for construction stages), the ≤20-character limit, refusal of duplicate cases and of existing names unless replaceExisting, and the undo counterpart. The one gap is that the confirmPlanHash workflow (where the hash comes from) is only implied.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and a concrete example, then the alternative routing, then the behavioral constraints. Dense and information-rich, but the middle name-resolution sentence is a long run-on that could be split for easier scanning.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent write with no output schema and nested combination objects, the description covers what gets written, what gets rejected, the preview-then-apply safety path, and the undo tool. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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?

Schema coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the important parts: the shape of `factors`, the meaning of the four `type` values, the replaceExisting gate, and the apply/confirmPlanHash pairing. It does not explain `desc` (max 60) or how the hash is obtained, leaving minor holes.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Writes general load combinations from plain factors') and immediately illustrates with a concrete JSON example. It also names the sibling tools it is not (ec_combinations_apply / cs454_combinations_apply), so an agent can route correctly without opening another schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states the selecting condition: 'for hand-picked combinations; for the full code set use ec_combinations_apply / cs454_combinations_apply.' It also gives the apply/confirmPlanHash gate for actually persisting versus previewing, which is the other main usage decision.

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

All MIDAS CIVIL NX tools (MIDAS IT Europe) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?