Establish a connection to a running CST Design Environment or start a new one. This action prepares the simulation session required for subsequent CST tasks.
Explicitly attach to a running CST Design Environment or start one. Disabled mode never connects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavior (attach/start) and the 'Disabled mode never connects' trait, but this trait is vague and unexplained. It does not say what happens in disabled mode (silent no-op, error, etc.), nor does it mention license requirements, blocking behavior, or side effects. For a tool that could silently fail, this is a significant transparency 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 two short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action ('Explicitly attach... or start one') and then adds the important 'Disabled mode' caveat. Every sentence contributes essential information, and it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.
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 connection tool, the description covers the core function and one edge case, but it lacks guidance on when this tool should be called relative to other CST operations (e.g., is it typically required before other tools?) and what happens in disabled mode. Given the large sibling list and the absence of an output schema, the description could provide more context about the tool's role in the workflow.
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 is empty (100% coverage). The description mentions 'Disabled mode,' which might be confused with a parameter but is not part of the schema. Since no parameters exist, the description adds little beyond the schema, but the baseline for 0 params is 4, and it does not mislead about parameter inputs.
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: 'Explicitly attach to a running CST Design Environment or start one.' This uses a specific verb (attach/start) and resource (CST Design Environment), and the word 'Explicitly' differentiates it from any implicit connection mechanism. It is distinct from siblings like cst_connection_status (which reports status) and cst_disconnect (which ends a connection).
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 establish a connection to CST, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as cst_connection_status for checking connection state or cst_disconnect for ending it, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The 'Disabled mode' hint suggests a condition, but it does not explain when an agent should call this versus other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.