Retrieve the member ID assigned to a specified element. Use it to map elements to members in GSA structural models.
Return member id associated with element.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| element_id | 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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether the tool returns a single value or a list (i.e., whether an element can have multiple members), whether it errors if the element has no member, or how the returned id maps to GSA model indexing. Only the basic 'returns member id' intent is conveyed.
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 short sentence, front-loaded and waste-free. Brevity is appropriate for a simple accessor, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing information scored elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, which keeps the bar lower. However, for a one-required-param accessor with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should at minimum disambiguate the mapping direction against the sibling tools; it does not.
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% and the sole parameter 'element_id' is undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'element' implicitly but adds no format, range, or indexing semantics (e.g., GSA element numbering). With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.
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 restates the name ('gsa_elem_memb_num' → 'member id associated with element') without naming the GSA context or the direction of the mapping. Sibling tools gsa_memb_num_elem and gsa_memb_elem_num perform the reciprocal mapping, and the description gives no way to distinguish between them beyond the literal reading of the name.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this is the correct tool versus gsa_memb_num_elem / gsa_memb_elem_num for a given mapping direction. No prerequisites or context described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.