Retrieve joint reactions from an ETABS model, filtered by item type (object, element, group, or selection) and name, including 'All' for the whole model.
Reacciones en nudos. item_type: 0=objeto, 1=elemento, 2=grupo, 3=seleccion.
Con item_type=2 y name='All' se consulta todo el modelo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| item_type | 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only explains parameter values. It does not mention that this is a read-only query, what the response contains beyond the name, any side effects, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a query 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids unnecessary fluff, making it highly 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?
The tool has three parameters and an output schema exists, so return format is not needed. However, the description leaves 'name' and 'limit' semantics ambiguous, and it lacks a general statement about the tool's behavior beyond the specific 'All' case. It is adequate for a simple query but not fully complete.
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 meaning of item_type (0-3) and the special combination with name='All'. However, it does not clarify the role of 'name' generally or the 'limit' parameter, leaving those under-specified.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves joint reactions ('Reacciones en nudos'), which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from siblings like etabs_base_reactions and etabs_frame_forces by the resource (joints vs. base or frames), but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
It provides a concrete usage tip for querying the entire model (item_type=2, name='All'), which is helpful. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over other reaction tools or mention any exclusion criteria, leaving the decision to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.