hvac_run_calcRun HVAC airflow calculations on the current duct network to evaluate smoke-control performance and catch input errors before simulation.
Run HVAC airflow calculation on the current duct network [bulc-mcp rules] HVAC-001, HVAC-003 — bulc_knowledge_search ""
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scoping fact that the calculation targets the current duct network; it does not say whether results are persisted, where they can be retrieved, or whether the network is mutated, which matters given readOnlyHint=false.
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?
The operative sentence is short, front-loaded, and free of padding. The appended bulk rule-reference block is a bit noisy and interrupts an otherwise clean definition, costing it a point.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the calculation returns or that results are fetched via the sibling hvac_get_results. For a zero-parameter execution tool whose annotations are thin on outcome, this leaves a real gap.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter meaning is added because none exists.
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 and resource: 'Run HVAC airflow calculation on the current duct network'. This clearly separates it from siblings like hvac_get_results or hvac_list_summary. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling, so 4 rather than 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: the 'current duct network' phrasing signals that an existing duct network is a prerequisite, and the trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] HVAC-001, HVAC-003 — bulc_knowledge_search' line hints at a mandated rule lookup, but no when-to-use condition or exclusion against spr_run_calc/hvac_get_results is stated explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.