Retrieves the solver protocol from the last analysis of a LIRA-SAPR/LIRA-FEM model, defaulting to the active or last analyzed model and returning a configurable number of tail lines.
The solver's protocol of the last analysis of a model (default: the active one, or the model analysed last), last tail_lines lines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | ||
| tail_lines | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavior: it returns only the last tail_lines lines and defaults to the active or most recently analysed model. It does not cover failure cases, such as no prior analysis, but it meaningfully extends the annotation.
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?
The definition is a single compact sentence with no obvious waste and front-loads the resource being retrieved. The phrasing is slightly awkward ('last tail_lines lines') but remains efficient.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described, and the read-only annotation covers safety. However, the description does not clarify what 'protocol' contains or what happens when no analysis exists, leaving moderate gaps for an otherwise simple retrieval tool.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies the model default and indicates that tail_lines limits the output to the last lines, but it does not explain the model identifier format or the tail_lines default/range, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
It names a specific resource, the solver protocol from the last analysis, and describes the default model selection and tail-line truncation. The purpose is clear, but 'protocol' is somewhat ambiguous and the description does not explicitly distinguish this from nearby siblings such as lira_analysis_status.
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 default behavior ('active model, or the model analysed last') implies when the tool is useful, but it does not state when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.