relative-interpreter-mcp

Enter submodel

enter_submodel

Scope into a submodel node to direct subsequent reads and edits within that submodel.

Instructions

Scope into a submodel node, so reads and edits apply inside it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "node": "<node>"
    },
    "name": "enter_submodel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node`	Yes	Name or name#uuid of a submodel node in the current scope.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavioral trait (changing the working scope so reads/edits apply inside the submodel) but does not mention reversibility (e.g., exit_submodel) or potential nesting behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundancy. It earns its place with the essential purpose and effect.

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 simple scoping tool, the description plus the schema sufficiently cover the operation's purpose and parameter. It could mention how to exit the scope, but given the sibling tool context, it remains mostly 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 schema has 100% coverage, providing the 'node' parameter description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Scope into a submodel node') and the effect ('so reads and edits apply inside it'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_scope and exit_submodel. The verb is specific and the resource is unambiguous.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to operate inside a submodel node. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes the use case evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.