Add straight segments to a FEMM model using coordinate pairs; endpoints are created as needed and crossing segments are split by FEMM.
Add straight segments [[[x1,y1],[x2,y2]], ...] (or [x1,y1,x2,y2] each). End nodes are created as needed. Segments that cross are split by FEMM at the intersection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | No | main | |
| segments | 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 burden. It usefully discloses two non-obvious behaviors: end nodes are auto-created, and crossing segments are split at intersections by FEMM. However, it omits the return value, coordinate units, and any session/state requirements.
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?
Two sentences with no filler, and the input-format spec is front-loaded ahead of the behavioral notes. Efficient and easy to scan, though terse.
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?
For a geometry-mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key behaviors and input format. It still omits units, the session parameter's meaning, and what is returned, so it is adequate but not complete.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document the accepted formats for 'segments' ('[[[x1,y1],[x2,y2]], ...]' or '[x1,y1,x2,y2] each'), which is valuable. The 'session' parameter is left entirely unexplained, so half the parameters remain 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 and resource ('Add straight segments') with the qualifier 'straight' that distinguishes it from femm_add_arcs and the draw_* family. No sibling is named, but an agent can infer the role from the verb+resource without opening a schema.
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?
No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance is given. With many sibling geometry tools (femm_add_arcs, femm_add_nodes, femm_draw_polyline), the agent gets no signal about which to choose, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.