Retrieve a class's kind, members, participating relationships, and diagram locations from a Visual Paradigm .vpp project to inspect its structure and connections.
Szczegóły jednej klasy: rodzaj, składowe, wszystkie relacje, w których uczestniczy, i położenie na diagramach klas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; it does convey that this is a read operation returning a rich composite view (members, relationships, diagram positions). However, it says nothing about behavior on a non-existent class, permission/auth needs, or whether the relationship data is expensive to compute.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the returned facets. Nothing is wasted, though the enumerated facets overlap with what the output schema already conveys.
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?
Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, so the main remaining gap is the undocumented 'path' parameter and the absence of any error/precondition guidance. Adequate but not fully sufficient for a two-required-parameter lookup tool.
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% for both required parameters. The description implies that 'name' identifies the class, but the required 'path' parameter is never explained (project path? file path? diagram path?), which is the main ambiguity an agent would hit. Only half the parameters gain any meaning beyond their bare names.
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?
Names a specific resource (one class) and enumerates what the result contains: kind, members, all relationships it participates in, and placement on class diagrams. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling vpp_list_classes, which returns many classes. It falls short of 5 only because it never explicitly names the sibling it complements.
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?
The phrasing 'jednej klasy' (a single class) implies this is the drill-down tool after listing, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. An agent must infer that it should call vpp_list_classes first to obtain the name/path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.