add_holeAdds an opening in an obstacle to an FDS fire model. Provide a six-value bounding box to define the hole volume.
Add a hole (opening in an obstacle) to the FDS model. XB defines the hole volume. [bulc-mcp rules] GEO-004, GEO-008 — bulc_knowledge_search ""
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique identifier | |
| xb | Yes | Hole bounding box [x1,x2,y1,y2,z1,z2] |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the mutation/idempotency facts are covered. The description adds that XB defines the hole volume, but omits the key behavioral fact of how the hole attaches to a parent obstacle (which object 'id' refers to).
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences that lead with the action and definition. The bracketed rule-reference footer is somewhat opaque but compact.
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?
For a simple 2-parameter additive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and 100% schema coverage, the core is present. However, the parent/child relationship implied by 'hole in an obstacle' and the meaning of 'id' are left unresolved, leaving a gap an agent must guess at.
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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema, including the XB format and 6-item constraint. The description's 'XB defines the hole volume' merely restates the schema, and it does not resolve whether 'id' is the hole's identifier or the owning obstacle's id.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Add a hole') and clarifies what a hole is ('opening in an obstacle') in the FDS model, which distinguishes it from siblings like add_obstacle, add_vent, and remove_hole. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many add_* siblings. The only routing hint is a cryptic '[bulc-mcp rules] GEO-004, GEO-008 — bulc_knowledge_search' pointer, which requires external lookup rather than explaining usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.