Reports the NXOpen bridge, Siemens NX version, and active-part status so you can verify connectivity and current session context before modeling or drafting.
Report bridge, NX version, and active-part status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | success | |
| connected | Yes | ||
| nx_version | Yes | ||
| active_part | No | ||
| bridge_protocol | Yes |
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 must carry the behavioral load. It implies a non-mutating read, but never states that it is safe/read-only, whether it requires an active bridge session, or what happens if no part is open — the single biggest behavioral question for a status call ('active-part status') goes unexplained.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and enumerating exactly the three pieces of information returned. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
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 return-value detail is not the description's burden, and with zero parameters there is nothing else to document. The only gap is behavioral: no mention of session/prerequisite state or whether the call is safe to invoke at any time.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter guidance is needed or missing.
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?
Specific verb + resource: 'Report' with three named outputs (bridge, NX version, active-part status). It is unambiguous what the tool returns and is clearly distinct from the modeling/list siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any of them (it doesn't need to, since none overlap).
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 explicit 'use when' statement, but the diagnostic/health-check nature is implied by 'Report ... status' and by the absence of any alternative status tool in the sibling list. An agent can infer it is the pre-flight/verification call before acting on a part, but that inference is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.