Creates a SysML Association Block (AssociationClass + Block) linking specified source and target elements under a parent, using provided IDs to define the association in the model.
Create a SysML Association Block (AssociationClass + Block stereotype).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| parent_id | Yes | ||
| source_id | Yes | ||
| target_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or return format. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap that leaves the agent uncertain about consequences.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose without extraneous detail. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
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 creation tool with four parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on when to use it, what the parameters represent, and what the tool returns. The output schema may cover return format, but the description does not mention any operational constraints or typical usage patterns.
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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the four parameters (name, parent_id, source_id, target_id) or their roles. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on required 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 action ('Create') and the specific resource ('SysML Association Block'), and clarifies the concept as 'AssociationClass + Block stereotype'. This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_association and create_block, which target different SysML constructs.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where create_association or create_block would be more appropriate, nor any prerequisites or contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.