Define an equivalent network for short-circuit studies by setting maximum and optional minimum short-circuit capacity and X/R ratios; zero-sequence data is not inferred.
Define Scc3/XR máxima y opcional mínima; no infiere secuencia cero.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kv_ll | Yes | ||
| x_r_max | Yes | ||
| x_r_min | No | ||
| fuente_url | No | ||
| scc_max_mva | Yes | ||
| scc_min_mva | No | ||
| escenario_activo | No | max | |
| fuente_referencia | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait — that it will not derive zero-sequence parameters — which prevents a wrong assumption. But it says nothing about whether it overwrites an existing equivalent network, what defaults apply, or any side effects on the model state.
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?
It is a single front-loaded clause with no wasted words, which is good structure. But for an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this level of brevity reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and no usage guidance leave the agent with substantial unknowns. Half the parameters are undocumented, and there is no indication of the effect of the call on the model or how it relates to the scenario-selection siblings.
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 all 8 parameters lack documentation. The description covers the meaning of four of them (scc_max_mva, scc_min_mva, x_r_max, x_r_min) but leaves kv_ll, fuente_url, escenario_activo, and fuente_referencia entirely unexplained in both schema and description. It partially compensates but falls well short of the coverage gap.
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 names a specific action ("Define") and the concrete quantities being set (Scc3 and X/R, maximum and optionally minimum), which maps clearly onto the tool's parameters. It also implicitly separates itself from the definir_secuencia_cero_* siblings by stating it does not infer zero sequence. The terseness and missing resource name (the "red equivalente" is only in the tool name) keep it 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?
"no infiere secuencia cero" implies the agent should use the definir_secuencia_cero_* tools for zero-sequence data, which is a useful exclusion. However, it never states when to call this tool versus those siblings, whether it requires prior scenario setup, or what prerequisites exist. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.