Inspect a KOMPAS-3D model to extract formula-bearing sketch dimensions, constraints, and feature variables, returning them for review or export.
Probe formula-bearing sketch dimensions, constraints, and feature variables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| visible | No | ||
| read_only | No | ||
| model_path | No | ||
| document_id | No | ||
| output_path | No | ||
| close_after_probe | No | ||
| include_contents_fallback | 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, the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It only says 'probe' without stating whether the tool is read-only, whether it opens/closes documents, what it returns, or any potential side effects. Parameter names like close_after_probe hint at document handling, but the description does not clarify.
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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it is too sparse to be considered well-structured for a complex tool.
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 tool with 7 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a specialized domain (probing formulas in CAD models), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the probing workflow, output format, or when to use it, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke reliably.
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 seven parameters (visible, read_only, model_path, document_id, output_path, close_after_probe, include_contents_fallback), leaving their purpose entirely to name inference. This is a critical gap for a tool with no schema descriptions.
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 states a specific action (probe) on a specific resource (formula-bearing sketch dimensions, constraints, and feature variables). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_sketch_dimensions or inspect_feature. However, 'probe' is vague about whether it returns formulas or just checks for their presence, so it isn't fully precise.
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 sibling tools like inspect_sketch_dimension or inspect_feature. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving an agent to guess the selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.