Retrieve key details about the current ETABS model, including file path, software version, units, and analysis status.
Datos del modelo abierto: archivo, version de ETABS, unidades y si esta analizado.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns model data, which clearly implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify the model or that it requires an open model (mentioned indirectly via 'modelo abierto'). The lack of explicit non-destructive assurance and potential failure condition (no open model) is a minor gap, but the description is adequate for a simple info getter.
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, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose. No filler or redundancy, and the core information is front-loaded.
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 description covers all essential aspects for a no-parameter info tool: it lists the specific data fields returned (file, version, units, analysis status). An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return formats. For its low complexity, nothing critical is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). There is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no extraneous parameter information.
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 provides data about the open model (file, ETABS version, units, analysis status) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like etabs_set_units (which modifies units) by implying read-only info retrieval, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It does not mention prerequisites like an open model or suggest other tools for related operations. The context is implicit from the name and description, but no explicit usage direction is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.