Creates a load combination in ETABS by combining load cases or combos with specified factors. Use to define linear additive combinations for structural analysis.
Crea una combinacion de carga. case_type: 0=load case, 1=combo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| cases | Yes | ||
| factors | Yes | ||
| case_type | No | ||
| combo_type | No | linear_additive |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'creates', implying a mutation, but does not state that the model must be open/unlocked, whether existing combinations are overwritten, or what errors may occur. This is a significant gap for a model-modifying 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?
The description is short and front-loaded, with no filler. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, providing minimal detail beyond the action and one parameter mapping.
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 no annotations, 5 parameters, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how cases and factors pair, valid combo_type values, preconditions, or behavioral side effects. An output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing usage and parameter context.
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 only case_type with a 0/1 mapping. The required cases and factors arrays are completely unexplained, and combo_type is left undocumented, leaving the agent to guess the expected format and relationships.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Crea una combinacion de carga' (creates a load combination). It is unambiguous about the primary action, though it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like etabs_load_cases or etabs_load_combinations, and the added case_type mapping slightly muddies the scope.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The case_type mapping hints at a distinction between load case and combo, but it is not explained when each should be chosen or how this tool relates to etabs_load_cases/etabs_load_combinations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.