Registers a TBC placeholder for OpenDSS models to track missing fields without creating fictitious electrical elements.
Registra un TBC sin crear un elemento eléctrico ficticio en OpenDSS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| element_id | Yes | ||
| known_data | No | ||
| element_type | Yes | ||
| missing_fields | Yes | ||
| source_reference | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one negative side effect: it does not create a fictitious electrical element in OpenDSS. But it does not state whether it writes persistent data, what side effects occur, whether permissions are required, or how missing_fields affects behavior.
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 one short sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient completeness.
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 6-parameter mutation-like tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It names a vague TBC object and one avoided side effect, but leaves the agent without parameter meaning, usage routing, or behavioral expectations for the registration 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 schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameter semantics. It mentions none of them: element_id, element_type, missing_fields, known_data, source_reference, or note. The agent gets no meaning beyond the bare property titles.
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?
It states a specific verb, "Registra," and a resource, "un TBC," but the acronym TBC is never expanded, so the actual object being registered remains ambiguous. The added clause about avoiding a fictitious OpenDSS element gives some differentiation, but not enough to distinguish it cleanly from placeholder-related siblings such as obtener_placeholders_modelo or construir_modelo_rev0.
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 description implies a context: registering a TBC without creating a fictitious OpenDSS element. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for the opposite or related operation. An agent must infer usage from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.