Skip to main content
Glama

MIDAS CIVIL NX tools (MIDAS IT Europe)

Generate and write CS 454 assessment combinations

cs454_combinations_apply
Destructive

Generates CS 454 assessment load combinations with the plugin's engine (Table A.1 γfL by combination 1–4 and limit state, adverse/relieving permanent variants, wind sub-case, ALL/SV/HB traffic with associated traffic, exclusive groups collapsed into envelopes, readable names) and writes them to an LCOM table with its commit; every row is read back by name. Previews unless apply: true.

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": "cs454_combinations_apply"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
showNoWhich combinations to list in the preview (all are written).
applyNo
casesNoPer-case mapping edits (match by caseId or caseName, as cs454_combinations_read lists them).
scopeNoCombinations 1–4, each { uls, sls }. Default: c1 ULS+SLS, c2–c4 ULS.
commitNo
groupsNonull = automatic from the mapping; "template:<id>" (see options.groupTemplates); or the full { groups, withinCategory, constraints } state.
gammaF3No
collapseNoCombine exclusive groups into one envelope sub-combination (the plugin's default); false never collapses.
relationsNo
factorEditsNoTable A.1 cell edits.
gammaF3ModeNoleaveToResistanceCheck
customActionsNoUser-defined variable actions (become X_<NAME>, factors 1.00/0.00 until edited).
structureTypeNoTable A.1 general or cast iron (ULS only); masonry arches are out of scope (blocked).general
confirmPlanHashNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that the tool writes combinations to an LCOM table with a commit and reads rows back by name, and that it previews by default. However, with destructiveHint=true, it does not explain what existing combinations may be overwritten or deleted, even though the schema has an existingHandling option for that.

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 one front-loaded sentence that identifies the action and key behavior immediately. It is dense with a long parenthetical list, but nearly every clause conveys relevant generation behavior.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 14-parameter destructive write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, preview/apply behavior, and readback but omits important commit semantics such as existing target handling and destructive consequences. The schema carries much of the remaining detail, but the description alone is only partially complete.

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?

The description adds useful meaning for apply by distinguishing preview from commit, and it summarizes the generation domain. With schema description coverage at 57%, it still leaves several parameters such as commit, groups, relations, factorEdits, and confirmPlanHash without added description-level explanation.

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 precise verb and resource: generates CS 454 assessment load combinations and writes them to an LCOM table. The preview/apply distinction also separates it from the read-oriented sibling cs454_combinations_read.

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?

Gives a clear default behavior: it previews unless apply: true, so the agent knows when the tool writes versus only shows output. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as cs454_combinations_read for inspection or cs454_combinations_undo for reversal.

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.

Resources