Place a monitoring well point by x/y coordinates in a CAD drawing, with optional depth, layer, well ID, and screened interval metadata.
Create a monitoring well point with optional depth and screened interval metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| unit | No | ||
| depth | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| well_id | No | ||
| screen_to | No | ||
| attributes | No | ||
| screen_from | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Create' but doesn't disclose whether this requires a project/CRS context, whether the point is committed immediately or within a transaction, whether it returns an ID, or how it interacts with the many transaction tools (begin_transaction, commit_transaction) in the catalog. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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?
Single efficient sentence, appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource. No waste, though it is arguably undersized for the complexity of 9 parameters and the many sibling tools.
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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It leaves coordinate system requirements, units, screen interval semantics (screen_from/screen_to), and the attributes object entirely unexplained.
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 0% across 9 parameters, and the description only hints at two of them ('optional depth and screened interval metadata'). Critical params like x/y (required), unit enum, well_id, layer, and attributes are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb (create) and resource (monitoring well point) with the key metadata fields (depth, screened interval). However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like create_sampling_point or create_point, which an agent could easily confuse it with in this dense catalog.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, no alternatives mentioned. In a catalog with create_point, create_sampling_point, create_box, etc., the description offers nothing to help the agent decide when a monitoring well is the right entity vs. a sampling point or generic point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.