Retrieves load combinations (DCL, РСН) from an analysed LIRA-SAPR model, including numbers, names, formulas, special and seismic flags, and governing building code.
Load combinations (DCL, РСН) of an analysed model: number, name, formula, special and seismic flags, and the building code they follow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the model must be analysed and lists the combination attributes returned; however, it does not discuss authentication, model-selection behavior, or error conditions.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is efficient, though domain abbreviations like 'DCL, РСН' reduce accessibility slightly.
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 need not be fully explained, and the annotations cover read-only safety. Still, the undocumented 'model' parameter and lack of usage guidance leave meaningful gaps for correct invocation.
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?
The sole parameter 'model' has 0% schema description coverage and is not explained in the description. The mention of 'an analysed model' hints at its role, but no format, identifier expectations, or default behavior are given.
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 identifies the resource clearly: load combinations of an analysed model, including number, name, formula, special/seismic flags, and building code. It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as lira_combination_forces or lira_read_loads.
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 phrase 'of an analysed model' implies a prerequisite, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings. No exclusions, alternatives, or invocation context are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.