Execute raw GWA command strings in GSA via COM automation on Windows, enabling direct structural engineering model control and custom command scripting.
Execute raw GWA command string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | 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 full behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether execution mutates the model, what permissions are required, whether commands are reversible, or any side effects. 'Execute raw command' leaves the agent with no safety or impact context.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than ideal sizing for a tool that executes arbitrary commands.
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 the tool's high complexity (arbitrary command execution) and the absence of annotations and parameter descriptions, the definition is far too thin. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, but critical context about usage, safety, and command format 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter. The description only repeats that it is a 'raw GWA command string,' which identifies the kind of input but gives no syntax, format, or examples to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('raw GWA command string'), which uniquely identifies the tool among the specific GSA siblings. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from those siblings or scope clarification beyond the resource 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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Given the numerous specific sibling tools (e.g., gsa_new_file, gsa_save, gsa_analyse), the description should explain when this generic command interface is appropriate, but it is silent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.