Solve MiniZinc constraint models from file paths, with optional data file, solver choice, and solution limits.
Solve a MiniZinc model given by file paths
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| solver | No | gecode | |
| data_path | No | ||
| model_path | 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 description provides minimal behavioral context beyond 'solve'. It doesn't mention what the tool returns (solutions, status, etc.), whether it triggers side effects, or if it requires specific environment conditions. The annotations only include 'openWorldHint: false', which is not informative for behavior, so the description carries the burden and falls short.
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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good for conciseness. However, it omits crucial details about parameter semantics and behavior that could have been added without bloating the description. It earns a moderate score because it is concise but under-specified.
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?
Given six parameters, no output schema, and a description that only states the core action, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on parameter usage (e.g., what data_path is for), return format, and error handling. An agent would need to infer a lot, especially since the tool likely has complex behavior (solving constraints, producing multiple solutions).
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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for any of the six parameters. The tool description itself does not elaborate on the parameters either. However, many parameter names are self-explanatory (e.g., model_path, solver, timeout_seconds), providing some implicit meaning. The description adds no extra semantics but the defaults are present in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate given the self-evident names.
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 given by file paths' clearly states the verb 'solve' and the resource 'MiniZinc model', and distinguishes it from siblings like 'solve_model' by the 'given by file paths' qualifier which implies the model is a file path rather than inline content. However, it could be more explicit about what makes it different from 'solve_model'.
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 implies usage is for solving models from file paths, which hints at a distinction from siblings like 'solve_model', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where this is preferred over 'solve_model' or when to use 'validate_model' first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.