describe_api_commandRetrieve the full description and input schema for an Archicad API command before executing it, ensuring accurate read/write operations.
Full description and input schema for one API command. Call before execute_read_api_command or execute_write_api_command.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns a full description and input schema and should be called before execution, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as whether the command name must come from a fixed list or what happens if an invalid name is provided.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is stated first, and the crucial usage instruction follows immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. The only notable gap is not pointing to list_api_commands as the source for valid command names, but this is a minor omission given the sibling context.
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 schema only defines 'name' as a string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'for one API command' implies that 'name' identifies a specific API command, but it does not explain where to find valid command names or that list_api_commands can be used for that purpose.
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's function: retrieving the full description and input schema for a single API command. It also distinguishes itself from the execution tools by explicitly saying to call it before execute_read_api_command or execute_write_api_command.
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 gives explicit guidance to call this tool before the execute commands, which clearly establishes its role as a prerequisite/introspection step. It does not explicitly mention list_api_commands as an alternative for discovering command names, so it falls slightly short of a full when-to-use vs when-not-to-use explanation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.