plecs_artifactsLists generated code and FMU output files with their sizes, letting agents verify and inspect PLECS code-generation artifacts by directory, pattern, and limit.
List generated files (code generation / FMU output) with sizes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| pattern | No | * | |
| directory | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations supply readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing about the fact that a directory is mandatory, how deep the listing goes, whether pattern is a glob, or what limit does when exceeded. With a required path parameter, this is thin behavioral context beyond the annotation.
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?
A single short sentence with the resource and key attribute front-loaded and no filler. It is concise to the point of being under-specified rather than padded.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage the description leaves the required directory argument and the pattern/limit semantics entirely unaddressed. An agent could not construct a correct call from this text alone.
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 the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions the required 'directory' parameter or what 'limit' and 'pattern' (glob syntax, defaults) mean. Only the 'sizes' hint maps loosely to returned data, not to any input parameter.
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 verb (List), a specific resource (generated files from code generation / FMU output), and even a returned attribute (sizes). It implicitly separates itself from simulation-oriented siblings like plecs_simulate or plecs_analyze, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus related tools such as plecs_codegen, plecs_export_fmu, or plecs_scan, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that codegen/FMU export must have run first). The agent must infer the context from the parenthetical alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.