Solve MiniZinc constraint models from chat by providing model code, then receive solutions and solver statistics. Supports configurable solver, timeouts, and multiple solutions.
Solve a MiniZinc model
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No | ||
| solver | No | gecode | |
| model_code | Yes | ||
| all_solutions | No | ||
| max_solutions | No | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations only provide openWorldHint=false, which is minimal. The description does not disclose what happens when the model is unsatisfiable, how solutions are returned, whether the solver selection affects behavior, or what side effects (if any) occur. For a tool that executes a model, the absence of behavioral context is a significant gap.
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 extremely short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the core action but does not earn its place by adding any detail beyond the tool name.
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?
With 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is far from complete. An agent would not know how to construct a valid call, what the result format is, or how to choose between this and solve_model_by_path. The presence of sibling tools makes the missing differentiation especially costly.
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, but it does not explain any parameter. The description does not clarify that model_code is the inline MiniZinc source, what params contains, how solver values map to available solvers, or what all_solutions and max_solutions do. The schema provides names and types only, and the description adds no meaning.
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 'Solve a MiniZinc model' states a clear verb and resource, but it is generic and does not distinguish this tool from its sibling solve_model_by_path, which also solves a MiniZinc model. The name and description are nearly redundant, and the agent cannot tell which tool to use without inspecting the 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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus solve_model_by_path or validate_model. The description does not mention that this tool takes inline model code, while solve_model_by_path presumably takes a file path. The agent is left to infer usage from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.