Verifies the NX bridge connection and readiness without altering any NX data. Use it to confirm the automation environment is operational before running other tools.
Check the configured Siemens NX bridge without modifying NX.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'without modifying NX,' which clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as what the check involves, whether it may fail under certain conditions, or what the return value looks like. Given the lack of annotations, this is an acceptable but incomplete disclosure.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key behavioral qualifier. There is no fluff or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and that it is safe to invoke.
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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It does not explain what a 'health check' entails, what the expected return value is, or how it relates to other tools in the sibling set. For an agent, this might be sufficient for a simple status probe, but the lack of return-value information and any error conditions leaves some ambiguity.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are none). According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4 because there is no need to explain parameter semantics. The description does not mention any parameters, which 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Check the configured Siemens NX bridge' – a specific verb (check) and resource (Siemens NX bridge). The qualifier 'without modifying NX' distinguishes it as a read-only health check, setting it apart from sibling tools like nx_create_part or nx_extrude that imply modification. It is not a tautology and provides a precise purpose.
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 – to check the health of the bridge – but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nx_preflight or nx_get_capabilities. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The intended use is inferable from the name and description, but the description does not actively route the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.