Check UAE BIM mandate applicability (Dubai Circular 196, Abu Dhabi DMT, Sharjah). Returns mandate status, compliance score, required LOD, and submission checklist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emirate | Yes | ||
| has_bep | Yes | ||
| ifc_export | Yes | ||
| bim_software | Yes | e.g. Revit 2024 | |
| building_type | Yes | ||
| has_bim_model | Yes | ||
| building_floors | Yes | ||
| building_area_m2 | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the core behavior: it returns mandate status, compliance score, required LOD, and submission checklist. It does not, however, clarify edge cases (e.g., emirate='other'), whether any data is persisted, or how mandatory thresholds are applied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence front-loads the purpose and jurisdiction, then lists the returned outputs. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with eight required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It provides a good high-level summary but omits practical context such as parameter meanings, emirate fallback behavior, or how the compliance score relates to the returned checklist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13%, so the description needed to compensate, but it explains nothing about the eight required parameters. Names like building_area_m2 and emirate are self-evident, but terms such as has_bep remain ambiguous (BIM Execution Plan vs. building energy performance) without any clarification in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Check'), a concrete resource ('UAE BIM mandate applicability'), and cites exact regulations (Dubai Circular 196, Abu Dhabi DMT, Sharjah), which also separates it from generic BIM or UAE sustainability siblings. It also previews the result type, making the tool's intent unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied by the title and description: use this for UAE BIM mandate checks. However, it does not state when to prefer it over related tools such as dgnb_bim_readiness or building_readiness, nor does it give exclusions or explicit conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have distinct domains (structural, carbon, compliance, heat pumps), but several overlap at a surface level: calculate_carbon, building_carbon_footprint, and uae_climate_ghg all deal with carbon; estimate_cooling_load and thermal_load both compute cooling loads; and multiple UK/UAE compliance checkers have similar 'readiness/checker/precheck' names. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent could still select the wrong tool without careful reading.
Naming is a mix of verb-led patterns (assess_epbd_score, calculate_carbon, check_uae_bim_compliance, estimate_cooling_load, get_technical_dd_quote) and noun-led phrases (building_carbon_footprint, building_readiness, digital_renovation_passport, roi_calculator, thermal_load). Sub-groups like check_* and eurocode_* are consistent internally, but the overall set has no unifying convention, which adds cognitive load.
With 27 tools, the server exceeds the 'heavy' range, even though the engineering domain is broad. Many tools are highly specialized (e.g., part_s_ev, mees_checker, dgnb_bim_readiness), and the large count risks overwhelming an agent trying to pick the right one. The scope may justify the number, but it edges into too-many territory.
The server covers a wide range of building and sustainability assessments: carbon, energy, compliance (EU/UK/UAE), structural design, cost benchmarking, and data centres. However, there are gaps in adjacent areas common to building engineering—such as acoustic design, water/sanitation, electrical systems, or thermal bridging—which would be expected from a general 'engineering' server. It is reasonably complete for its apparent sustainability/regulatory focus, but not universally.
