Fetch detailed properties of Archicad layers by attribute ID, including visibility, lock status, wireframe, and intersection group, to inspect layer settings.
Returns the details of the given Layer attributes. (Tapir, Attribute Commands)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Names of the fields to return for each Layer. If omitted, every field is returned. | |
| attributeIds | Yes |
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 safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds almost nothing: it does not describe the return shape, the meaning of 'details', or any scope/limit behavior, leaving behavior opaque for a query tool.
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 short sentence with the parenthetical source tag; it is front-loaded and wastes no words. The only minor cost is that its brevity comes at the expense of substance.
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 and thin annotations, the description should carry more of the load for a query tool with two parameters including a required nested-array identifier. It does not explain what a Layer's 'details' contain or how the attributeIds array maps to a single layer, leaving it incomplete.
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 only 50%; the 'fields' parameter is well documented in the schema, but 'attributeIds' relies solely on a $ref type description. The description text adds no parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 pairs a specific verb ('Returns') with a resource ('Layer attributes'), which is better than a tautology. However, the phrasing 'the details of the given Layer attributes' is ambiguous about whether it returns layers or attributes of layers, and it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from siblings like GetAttributesByType or GetAllProperties.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other 'Get...' query tools in the sibling list. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.