cm_model_getRetrieve a parameter value from a loaded Simulink model or block using its path and parameter name, so agents can inspect CarMaker controller settings.
get_param on a loaded Simulink model or block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Model or block path, e.g. 'MyModel/Controller/Gain' | |
| param | Yes | Parameter name, e.g. 'Gain' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only the 'loaded' precondition; it says nothing about what happens if the model is not loaded, whether specific parameter names are valid, or the error/return behavior.
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?
It is a single terse fragment with no wasted words, but it is arguably stripped below the point of usefulness, offering no structure or additional sentence to orient the agent. Efficient, but under-specified rather than well-shaped.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is minimally adequate, and no output schema means return values need not be explained. However, it leaves the relationship to cm_model_set and the failure mode for unloaded models unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters ('path', 'param') are documented with examples in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 gives a specific verb ('get_param') and resource ('a loaded Simulink model or block'), and the title reinforces it as a read of a Simulink parameter. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names its natural counterpart cm_model_set to sharpen the read-vs-write distinction.
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 qualifier 'loaded' implies a precondition (the model must already be loaded) and the domain is implied, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as cm_model_set or cm_get_workspace_var. Guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.