MIDAS CIVIL NX tools (MIDAS IT Europe)

Generate and write Eurocode load combinations

ec_combinations_apply

Destructive

Generates EN 1990 bridge load combinations with the Eurocode Load Combinations plugin's engine (6.10 / 6.10a+b, SLS characteristic / frequent / quasi-permanent, accidental 6.11, seismic 6.12; Annex A2 ψ by bridge type; recommended, UK or Irish annex factors; leading-action and exclusive-alternative logic) and writes them to an LCOM table with its commit: the target is re-read first, every row is read back. 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": "ec_combinations_apply"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`show`	No	Which combinations to list in the preview (all are written).
`apply`	No
`scope`	No	Default: ULS 6.10a + 6.10b only. UK and Irish annexes require 6.10 for bridges.
`commit`	No
`groups`	No	Advanced: the Groups & Relations state { groups, withinCategory, constraints }. Omit to build them automatically from the mapping, as the plugin does.
`factors`	No	Annex, bridge type and typed overrides (only finite numbers are taken).
`mapping`	No	Changes to the mapping ec_combinations_read shows; only the rows to change. Rows match by caseId, else caseName (moving rows by charCaseName).
`confirmPlanHash`	No
`collapseExclusive`	No	Combine exclusive alternatives into one envelope sub-combination (the plugin's default per relation).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the target is re-read first, every row is read back after writing, and the default is a preview unless apply:true. It does not describe deletion effects, but the schema covers existingHandling safety.

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 with the main purpose and packs relevant detail into a single dense sentence plus a short second sentence. The parenthetical list of Eurocode clauses is informative but slightly overpacked; every clause is relevant, though the text could be trimmed for readability.

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 complex 9-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the core generation/write behavior, supported standards, and preview/apply safety. It does not mention reading the current mapping via ec_combinations_read or undoing via ec_combinations_undo, but the schema's mapping description partially compensates.

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 67%, so many parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the key behavior that 'apply' defaults to preview, but does not explain scope, factors, mapping, commit, or other parameters beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate for this coverage.

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: 'Generates EN 1990 bridge load combinations ... and writes them to an LCOM table.' It also enumerates the supported combination types (6.10, SLS, accidental, seismic), distinguishing it from read/undo siblings by making clear it is the writer.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description says 'Previews unless apply: true,' which tells the agent the default is a safe preview and apply must be set to commit. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as ec_combinations_read or ec_combinations_undo, nor does it state preconditions like needing a configured mapping first.

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?