Create a beam or column between two global coordinates by specifying start and end points and a section, enabling structural frame addition in ETABS models.
Crea una viga o columna entre dos coordenadas globales.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| xi | Yes | ||
| xj | Yes | ||
| yi | Yes | ||
| yj | Yes | ||
| zi | Yes | ||
| zj | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| section | 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 exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that it 'creates' a beam/column, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., modification of the model, requirement for unlocking), error handling, or return values. The presence of an output schema is not reflected in the description.
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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary wording. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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?
While the tool is relatively simple, the description omits essential context: parameter meanings, return format, units, coordinate system assumptions, and interactions with the model state. The lack of parameter explanations and behavioral details makes it incomplete for reliable use.
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 descriptions are 0% (no parameter documentation). The description does not compensate by explaining any of the 8 parameters (xi, yi, zi, etc.). Even obvious ones like coordinates are left implicit, and 'name' and 'section' are not defined. This is a critical gap.
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 'Crea una viga o columna entre dos coordenadas globales' clearly states the action (creates) and the resource (a beam or column between two global coordinates). It is distinct from sibling tools like etabs_add_area, but does not explicitly differentiate from other add operations, so a slight deduction.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., etabs_frames for listing, etabs_add_area for areas). There is no mention of prerequisites like an open model or unlocked state, nor any indication of when this tool is preferred over similar add actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.