Retrieve ETABS load patterns, cases, and combinations with types, self-weight multipliers, and scale factors to verify structural loading definitions.
Load patterns (with type and self-weight multiplier), load cases (with type) and combinations (with their cases and scale factors).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only what data is returned (e.g., self-weight multiplier, scale factors), which is output-schema territory. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements or rate limits.
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 description is a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the main resource (load patterns) and lists the other returned categories. Every phrase adds specific detail without redundancy or filler.
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 has no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It adequately conveys what categories of load definitions are returned. A minor gap is the lack of any context about whether it operates on the currently connected model, but this is not critical for a read-only list operation.
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 no parameter semantics to document. Per the scoring rule, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description cannot add meaning beyond an empty schema.
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 enumerates the components of load definitions (patterns, cases, combinations) but never states an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve'. It relies on the tool name to convey the listing action. The resource is clear, but the purpose is only implied rather than stated directly.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like etabs_define_load_patterns or etabs_define_combinations. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer its usage entirely from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.