List materials, frame sections, and area properties from ETABS models, filtered by kind, to inspect structural definitions, dimensions, and units.
List materials (with type), frame sections (with shape and dimensions in present units) and area properties (slabs, decks, walls).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | all |
| 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful scope detail (types, shape and dimensions in present units, area property categories), but does not go beyond that to explain behavior such as model-connection requirements or result completeness.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though the flat list format is minimal rather than highly structured.
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?
The description names the resources and what detail they carry, and annotations plus an output schema cover safety and return values. However, it omits the only input parameter's purpose and any routing guidance relative to sibling list tools, leaving clear gaps for an agent deciding when and how to call it.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the enum values by explaining what materials, frame sections, and area properties include, but never mentions the `kind` parameter, its filtering role, or the default `all` value.
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 ('List') and three concrete resources (materials, frame sections, area properties) with useful detail about what each contains. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools such as etabs_list_objects or etabs_list_tables, so it falls short of a 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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer that this tool is for inspecting already-defined material/section/area properties rather than objects or tables.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.