Create ETABS load patterns with matching linear static load cases by specifying name, type, and self-weight multiplier, enabling structural analysis setup.
Define load patterns (Define > Load Patterns), each optionally with its linear static load case.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patterns | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by revealing that each pattern may also spawn a linear static load case, but it omits re-run/replace semantics, permission or unlock requirements, and side effects on existing patterns.
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 clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler, mapped to the UI path. However, for a non-idempotent mutation tool it is arguably too terse — the brevity comes at the cost of missing preconditions rather than being an efficient summary of complete information.
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 values need no explanation, but as a write operation with no annotations covering mutation behavior in depth, the description should state preconditions (connected instance, unlocked model) and effects on existing definitions. Those are absent, and the sole top-level parameter is left undescribed.
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?
Top-level schema coverage is effectively 0% — the 'patterns' array is undocumented — and the description only gestures at the optional load-case behavior. Nested fields (type, add_analysis_case) do carry inline descriptions, but the description does not clarify the required 'name', the array-of-objects structure, or the self-weight multiplier.
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 and resource ('Define load patterns') and even maps it to the ETABS UI path, which helps distinguish it from siblings like etabs_define_seismic_load, etabs_define_wind_load, and etabs_define_combinations. The clause about optionally creating a matching linear static load case adds useful scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast 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, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. It doesn't mention that the model must be connected and unlocked, nor when to prefer this over the seismic/wind/combination definitions. The agent must infer all of this from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.