Parse MIKE Zero setup files (PFS format) to extract engine, sections, file references, and key parameters. Pass a setup file path to retrieve structured configuration data.
解析一个 MIKE Zero setup 文件（PFS 格式），返回引擎、段、文件引用、关键参数。
Args: setup: setup 文件绝对路径，例如 .m21fm / .sim11 / .she / .couple / .mzt。 year: 可选，指定 MIKE Zero 年份。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| setup | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'parses' and 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, nor does it mention potential errors, file existence requirements, or output format. The level of transparency is minimal but not misleading.
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 extremely concise—two sentences total—with the purpose front-loaded and parameter details following. Every word contributes, and the format (description followed by Args) is clean and scannable.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return structure. It lists what is returned (engine, sections, file references, key parameters) but does not specify the format (e.g., dict, list) or error behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap, but for an agent invoking it, knowing the return shape would improve completeness.
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 description explains both parameters meaningfully: setup is an absolute path with concrete examples, and year is an optional MIKE Zero version selector. This adds value beyond the bare schema types, which only define string/null. Given 0% schema coverage, the description effectively compensates, though it could be more explicit about year's effect.
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 the tool parses MIKE Zero setup files in PFS format and enumerates the extracted content (engine, sections, file references, key parameters). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mz_dfs_read which read data files, and mz_scan which likely scans projects. The verb 'parse' and resource 'setup file' are specific.
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 usage for reading setup files by providing file extension examples (.m21fm, .sim11, etc.) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mz_dfs_read or mz_scan. There is no mention of exclusion criteria or alternative selection, leaving some inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.