Check the current state of the Siemens NX environment by reporting bridge connectivity, NX version, and active part details.
Report bridge, NX version, and active-part status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | success | |
| connected | Yes | ||
| nx_version | Yes | ||
| active_part | No | ||
| bridge_protocol | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reports status information, which implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. However, it does not disclose details such as whether it requires an open part, what happens if no part is active, or the format of the report. The description is adequate but minimal.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the three report categories. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It names the three status areas (bridge, NX version, active part). However, it does not clarify whether the tool can be called without an active part or what the output schema contains, though the output schema itself may cover the return structure. The description is sufficient for basic invocation but lacks edge-case context.
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, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, meaning there is nothing undocumented. The description correctly implies the tool takes no input and simply reports current state.
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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names the resources it covers ('bridge, NX version, and active-part status'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools. Among the siblings, none appear to be status-reporting tools, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 this is a diagnostic/status tool to be used when you need environment or active-part information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.