Retrieve FEMM problem definition details, geometry bounding box, and node/element counts to verify model setup before or after solving.
Problem definition as FEMM reports it (xi_getprobleminfo, and xo_getprobleminfo after a solve: note the post-processor reports depth in metres), the geometry bounding box, and node/element counts when solved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | No | main |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context: the underlying FEMM calls (xi_getprobleminfo / xo_getprobleminfo), the post-processor depth-units caveat (metres), and the fact that node/element counts appear only when solved. However it never states that this is a non-mutating read, nor what happens if no problem/document is open.
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 dense sentence that is front-loaded with the core resource and then layers the qualifiers. It is efficient, though the parenthetical with dual FEMM call names and the unit caveat packs a lot into one breath.
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 read-only info tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main return categories (problem definition, bounding box, node/element counts) and adds the unit nuance. It is largely complete, with only the session parameter and the no-problem-open behavior left uncovered.
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?
There is one parameter (session, default 'main') with 0% schema coverage, and the description never mentions it. For a single undocumented parameter the description should compensate by explaining the session concept, but it is silent, leaving meaning beyond the schema absent.
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+resource (problem definition info) and enumerates what is returned: the FEMM problem definition, the geometry bounding box, and node/element counts when solved. It is clear about scope, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby read-only siblings such as femm_geometry_summary or femm_status.
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?
Usage is only implied – an agent can infer this is the tool for querying the current problem setup, and the note 'after a solve' hints at the post-solve variant. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no named alternative (e.g. femm_problem_define for setting vs this for reading).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.