Relink a copied assembly to a new output path by specifying the assembly, search root, and output location. Preview and apply reference updates directly in KOMPAS to resolve broken links.
Preview and apply assembly relinks to a copied file through KOMPAS itself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relink_all | No | ||
| output_path | Yes | ||
| search_root | Yes | ||
| assembly_path | Yes |
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 carries the full burden. It mentions 'preview and apply' implying a mutating action, but gives no details on side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what 'apply' entails. The agent has no way to anticipate the impact.
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 sentence, so it is concise, but it lacks any structure or elaboration. It is under-specified rather than efficiently written, and the front-loading of the verb is the only structural merit.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large set of closely related siblings, this description is completely inadequate. It omits return behavior, parameter roles, and selection criteria, making it impossible to use 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%, and the description does not mention any parameters. There is no explanation of assembly_path, search_root, output_path, or relink_all, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them.
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 verb ('preview and apply'), a resource ('assembly relinks to a copied file'), and a method ('through KOMPAS itself'). However, it does not differentiate from the many relink siblings, such as relink_file_from_map_to_output or preview_relink_paths, leaving ambiguity about which tool is appropriate.
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 alternatives. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.