Create a slab or wall in ETABS by providing ordered vertex coordinates and a property name. This adds area elements to your structural model.
Crea una losa o muro a partir de sus vertices [[x, y, z], ...] en orden.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| points | Yes | ||
| property_name | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the basic create action and vertex ordering but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., an open model, existing property_name), side effects, error conditions, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and input, though it could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., separating purpose from usage).
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?
Given 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, this description is insufficient. An agent would not know what property_name refers to, whether the model must be open, or what the output schema returns. The description is far too minimal for correct invocation without prior knowledge.
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 compensate. It explains the 'points' format (array of [x,y,z] vertices in order) but does not clarify the meaning of 'property_name' or the optional 'name' parameter. The most critical parameter after points is left ambiguous.
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 states a specific verb ('crea' = creates), a resource ('losa o muro' = slab or wall), and the input format (vertices in order). It distinguishes the action from property-definition siblings like etabs_define_slab and etabs_define_wall, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as etabs_add_frame, etabs_define_slab, or etabs_areas. The usage context is only implied by the action, with no explicit conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.