Retrieve all user-defined and built-in properties from an open Archicad project to inspect available property data for schedules, takeoffs, or quality checks.
Returns all user defined and built-in properties. (Tapir, Property Commands)
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds only the scope ('all user defined and built-in'), with no note on return shape or ordering, which is minimal but not misleading.
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?
One sentence plus a namespace parenthetical, front-loaded with the core action. The '(Tapir, Property Commands)' note is minor overhead but aids grouping.
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 no-parameter, read-only enumeration tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. Return format is unspecified, but there is no output schema demanding it.
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 schema coverage is vacuously complete and the baseline for no-param tools is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify.
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?
States a clear verb ('Returns') and resource ('properties'), scoped to 'all user defined and built-in' ones. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling GetPropertyValuesOfElements, so an agent could confuse property definitions with property values.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. The description gives no signal for choosing this over GetPropertyValuesOfElements or other property-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.