Retrieve selected tree items with their current properties from a KOMPAS-3D document to inspect or verify model state.
Return selected tree items with their current properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_ids | No | ||
| document_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only retrieval of current properties, but it does not mention side effects, permission needs, error behavior, or the scope of the returned items. It does not contradict annotations because none exist.
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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording; every word contributes. It is concise but sacrifices necessary detail, so it does not quite reach the highest bar.
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?
This tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter schema coverage, yet the description explains none of the parameters, return shape, or selection semantics. An agent would not have enough information to choose or invoke this tool correctly.
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 item_ids and document_id. It does not mention either parameter, and 'selected tree items' only vaguely hints at item selection without clarifying how the parameters map to the call.
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 clear verb ('Return') and names the resource ('tree items with their current properties'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'selected' is ambiguous, and the description does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like get_item_properties, find_items, or get_document_tree.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_item_properties or find_items. The description does not explain what 'selected' means, whether item_ids or document_id are needed, or what conditions favor this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.