Reports whether an SDC data model defines governance and which dimensions are active, using an XSD schema path. Returns model ID, label, governance flag, and active dimensions.
Report which governance dimensions the model defines. Returns model_id, model_label, has_governance, and active dimensions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema_path | Yes | Path to the SDC data model XSD file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return fields (model_id, model_label, has_governance, active dimensions), which is real behavioral value. However, it never states that the operation is a read-only inspection, nor what happens with an invalid or non-governed XSD path.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return shape. Nothing is wasted and no sentence repeats the title or name.
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 single-parameter inspection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose plus the returned fields, which compensates for the missing output schema. It falls short only on error behavior and explicit read-only framing.
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 with 100% schema description coverage ('Path to the SDC data model XSD file'), so the schema already does the work. The description only implicitly connects the parameter to 'the model' and adds no format or path-resolution detail beyond the schema.
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: 'Report which governance dimensions the model defines,' which tells an agent exactly what information comes back. It does not distinguish itself from sibling governance tools like validate_governance or get_allowed_transitions, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many governance-related siblings. An agent has to guess whether this is the right entry point versus validate_governance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.