select_archicad_instanceSwitch all subsequent tool calls to the Archicad instance listening on a specified port when multiple instances run, so commands target the correct project.
When several Archicad instances run, switches all following tool calls to the instance listening on port (see archicad_status).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the crucial non-obvious behavior that the effect is sticky — it redirects ALL following tool calls — which annotations cannot convey. It does not describe error behavior for an invalid or non-listening port.
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 sentence, with the conditional trigger front-loaded and the stateful consequence stated immediately after. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or title.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema session tool, the description covers the trigger condition, the effect, and where to find the port value. Remaining gaps (invalid-port behavior, persistence across reconnects) are minor but real.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter. It does add real meaning: `port` identifies which running instance's listener to route to, and it references archicad_status for discovering valid values. It still omits any format/validity guidance beyond what the schema's 1-65535 range already implies.
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 states a specific action (switch all following tool calls) and the resource being selected (the Archicad instance listening on `port`). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing this as a session-routing operation rather than a per-document command, and points to archicad_status as the companion discovery tool.
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 an explicit condition for use: 'When several Archicad instances run.' It also cross-references archicad_status for finding instances. It does not state when not to call it (e.g., single-instance setups) or whether it must precede other calls, so it falls short of a full when/when-not rubric.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.