MIDAS CIVIL NX tools (MIDAS IT Europe)

Combinations: list them, or show one's tree

combination_tree

Read-only

Load Combination Contribution Analyzer, step 1. Without name: lists the model's General-tab load combinations (LCOM-GEN) with type (ADD, ENVELOPE, ABS, SRSS), constituent count, whether it is a max/min pair, and whether it can be decomposed (refused: time-history, unknown analysis type, undefined constituents, self-reference, a constituent whose type differs from the case of that name) — plus the result tables the model has items for (BEAM, TRUSS, PLATE, ELASTICLINK, GENLINK, REACTION, DISPLACEMENT) with their components and units, structure groups, construction stages and the model's units. With name: that combination's full tree (nested combinations, factors, kinds), the effective factor of every load case over all Add paths (a case reached down several branches gets the sum of the path products), and the envelopes / ABS / SRSS inside it. Read-only.

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": "combination_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	A combination to show in full. Omit to list them all.
`limit`	No
`units`	No	Units to report in (CIVIL NX converts). Default: the model's own.
`search`	No	Only combinations whose name contains this (case-insensitive).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: the exact conditions under which decomposition is refused (time-history, unknown analysis type, undefined constituents, self-reference, type mismatch), how effective factors accumulate over Add paths, and what the list mode enriches with units and construction stages. It only repeats 'Read-only', which the annotations already cover.

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 mode distinction is front-loaded and every clause carries domain information for a complex read tool. It is dense and long, but the length is earned by the amount of return data that has no output schema to describe it.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well, enumerating tables, components, units, groups, stages and the tree structure. The main gap is limit/pagination behavior, which is never explained in either the description or the schema.

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 75%: name, search and units are already documented in the schema, and the description mostly restates the name/omit behavior. The limit parameter and its default/maximum are left unexplained in both places, so the description adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific resource (General-tab load combinations LCOM-GEN) and both operating modes with verbs: 'Without name: lists...' and 'With name: that combination's full tree'. The 'step 1' framing plus the mention of combination decomposition separates it from the sibling combination_contributions.

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?

The name/omit distinction gives an explicit routing rule between the two modes, and 'step 1' signals this precedes the contribution analysis. It stops short of naming the follow-on sibling or stating when not to use it.

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?