Generate a start/stop self-hold ladder logic circuit for FATEK .ldr files, with options for stop input polarity and verified or candidate stop behavior.
Create X0/Y0 self-hold. True: X1=1 stops (verified). False: X1=0 stops (candidate).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output_name | Yes | ||
| allow_unverified | No | ||
| stop_input_active_high | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds some semantics via 'verified/candidate', but never explains what verification means, whether the created rung is persisted, or what side effects occur. Given the mutation nature, the added context is thin.
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 definition is compact and front-loaded, which is good, but the telegraphic fragments read as under-specification rather than efficient concision. Every token counts here for the wrong reason: too little meaning per sentence.
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 needn't be covered, but with 0% schema coverage on parameters and no behavioral explanation, the description is insufficient for a creation tool with three arguments. An agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently.
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 must carry the parameter burden. It partially addresses stop_input_active_high and hints at allow_unverified ('verified/candidate'), but output_name is never explained and the mapping is cryptic, leaving the bulk of semantics undocumented.
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 (Create) and a resource (X0/Y0 self-hold), which is more than a tautology. However, 'X0/Y0 self-hold' is heavy domain jargon that an agent without ladder-logic context cannot decode, and there is no differentiation from siblings like create_ldr. Purpose is implied but not plainly stated.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as create_ldr or validate_ladder. The two 'True/False' lines describe parameter behavior rather than selection criteria, so the agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.