Fetch installed CADFEKO or POSTFEKO 2026.1 API documentation using an application name and relative path; add a search term to locate relevant API details.
Read installed CADFEKO/POSTFEKO 2026.1 API, e.g. application=cadfeko, relative_path=object/rectangle.htm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| application | Yes | ||
| search_term | No | ||
| relative_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals only that the API is 'installed', which implies local filesystem access, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes when the path or application is invalid, or whether search_term changes behavior.
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 sentence with the resource stated first and the example appended, so the reader gets the point immediately. It is tight, though arguably too terse given the documentation gaps it leaves.
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 described, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description leaves an agent unsure which application strings are valid, what search_term does, and how to discover relative paths. For a 3-parameter lookup tool this is not enough to call 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 compensate, and it partly does: the example fixes the format of relative_path (object/rectangle.htm) and a valid application value (cadfeko). It never explains search_term or enumerates the accepted application strings, so two of three parameters remain underspecified.
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 verb 'read' plus the resource 'installed CADFEKO/POSTFEKO 2026.1 API' identifies the domain, and the example clarifies that it fetches a specific documentation page by application and relative path. However, 'read ... API' is ambiguous on its own (retrieve documentation vs. invoke an endpoint), and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling script/artifact tools.
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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites (e.g. that the documentation must be installed locally), and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The presence of a search_term parameter hints at a lookup workflow but the description never explains it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.