Open an OpenDSS element by name without running a Solve or regenerating the workspace file. Use it to inspect or edit network components while preserving current simulation state.
Abre un elemento sin Solve ni regeneración de archivo workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nombre_elemento | 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 provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no Solve is run and no workspace file regeneration occurs, which is the key behavioral distinction, but it omits other operational traits such as whether opening mutates state, persistence effects, permissions, or error conditions.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It places the core action first and the key negative scope second, which is appropriate for a simple one-parameter tool.
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?
For a simple open-element operation, the description covers the crucial 'sin Solve ni regeneración' behavior. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage on the required parameter, it leaves gaps around parameter semantics and usage selection that an agent may need.
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?
There is one required parameter, nombre_elemento, and schema description coverage is 0%; the schema only repeats the title 'Nombre Elemento'. The description does not add any meaning about the expected name format, element identifiers, or valid values, so the parameter remains minimally documented.
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 ('Abre un elemento') and immediately qualifies it behaviorally ('sin Solve ni regeneración de archivo workspace'), which distinguishes it from the sibling abrir_elemento and from regenerar_workspace. An agent can tell what this tool does and what it explicitly does not do from the first sentence.
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 negative qualifiers imply the tool should be chosen when the caller wants to open an element without Solve or workspace-file regeneration, but the description never states when to use it versus abrir_elemento or when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.