Retrieve a child object from the main IC-CAP project by its name, with an optional type filter to return only Models or IVars.
Get a child object from Main by name. Optionally filter by type (Model, IVar).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| child_name | Yes | Child name, e.g. model name | |
| child_type | No | Optional type filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and the optional type filter; it does not mention what happens if the child is not found, whether it returns a single object or list, or any error behavior. This is a thin description for a tool with zero annotation support.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the optional filter is stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the low complexity (2 params, no nested objects) and complete schema descriptions, the description is nearly sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could be improved by stating the return value or failure behavior, but for a straightforward getter this is not a critical gap.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both child_name and child_type. The description adds marginal context by mapping 'by name' to child_name and naming the allowed type values, but it does not add format, syntax, or edge-case details 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?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Get a child object from Main by name') and a resource (Main), with an optional filter by type. It is distinguishable from general object_get_child via the 'from Main' qualifier, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools for comparison.
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 when to use this tool: when you need a child object from Main by name and optionally filtered by type. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tool (e.g., main_get_models, main_get_ivars) to prefer, leaving some room for inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.