Locate FEKO components, the supplied model, and documented assumptions to verify the simulation environment before running solver or post-processing tasks.
Locate FEKO components, the supplied model and its documented assumptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it mutates anything, what permissions it needs, or what the output looks like; 'Locate' weakly implies a lookup but is not explicit.
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 compact sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it could be front-loaded with a clearer statement of what is returned.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a vague one-line description, an agent cannot tell what this tool returns or what 'environment' means in this workflow. For a zero-arg discovery tool the description should at least describe the shape of the result.
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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. No parameter-level information is needed or missing.
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 names a verb ('Locate') and a set of resources (FEKO components, supplied model, documented assumptions), which is more than a tautology. But 'Locate' is ambiguous for a tool literally named get_environment — it is unclear whether it returns paths, configuration, or metadata, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like read_api or get_artifacts.
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 statement of when to call this tool, what preconditions exist, or how it relates to siblings such as create_preliminary_model or run_cad_script. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.