Run a 5-stage deterministic constraint solver to validate rack layouts, generate ASCII front/rear elevation plans, and return diagnostics with self-correction remediation suggestions.
Run the full 5-stage deterministic constraint solver, generate an ASCII front/rear elevation plan, and return diagnostics with self-correction remediation suggestions.
| 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?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict that. It adds useful context that the solver is deterministic and that the output includes ASCII elevations plus self-correction remediation text, but says nothing about what happens on failure, whether all racks or just the current one are checked, or how large the ASCII output may be.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; each clause adds a distinct output (solver run, ASCII plans, diagnostics). The phrase '5-stage deterministic constraint solver' is jargon the agent cannot act on, which is the only wasted bytes.
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 no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it partially does by naming diagnostics, remediation suggestions, and ASCII elevations. It leaves unclear what is being validated and whether the ASCII plan appears in the result or is a side effect, which matters for a validation tool the agent is expected to act on.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, state-based invocation.
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?
Names three concrete actions — run the constraint solver, generate ASCII front/rear elevation plans, return diagnostics with remediation — which is far more specific than a restatement of the name. The gap is that the object being validated is never stated: with zero parameters it presumably validates the current in-memory rack state, but the agent must infer that.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of adjacent siblings like export_deliverables (which also produces deliverables) or init_rack/mount_equipment (which presumably must precede a validation run). The agent has to guess where this fits in the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.