bim_citeRetrieve the verbatim STEP line behind a GlobalId to verify claims and trace where reported numbers came from.
Return the original file text behind a GlobalId: the STEP line that declares it, verbatim. Use it to verify a claim before repeating it, and when a reviewer asks where a number came from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | GlobalId from a previous result. | |
| max_lines | No | Cap on quoted lines. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the return is the verbatim original STEP line, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention missing-ID errors or truncation/line-cap 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?
Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted wording. Every phrase contributes either the tool's output or its intended use.
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 simple read-only two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, return value, and usage well enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around truncation/max_lines behavior and not-found cases, though the schema documents `max_lines`.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that `id` is a GlobalId but adds no syntax, format, or `max_lines` details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
It states a specific verb and resource: return the original file text behind a GlobalId, specifically the STEP line that declares it verbatim. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling BIM query/aggregation tools as a provenance/citation lookup.
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?
It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: verify a claim before repeating it, and when a reviewer asks where a number came from. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.