Retrieve paginated native user node IDs and reference coordinates for a specified model, using a zero-based offset. Coordinates are returned undeformed.
Page native user node IDs and reference coordinates. Offset is zero-based; coordinates are not deformed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| model | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| file_type | No | keyword |
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 behavioral burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: offset is zero-based and returned coordinates are undeformed (reference coordinates). It still omits pagination behavior beyond offset, ordering guarantees, and any auth/scope requirements.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core listing behavior front-loaded and no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than bloated, but structurally efficient.
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 paginated listing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is thin: it never describes the returned shape (e.g., ID-to-coordinate mapping) or pagination termination. An agent cannot confidently call it without guessing at model/file_type semantics.
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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate but only covers one: it explains 'offset is zero-based' but adds no meaning for model, limit, or the ambiguous file_type (default 'keyword'). Two of four parameters remain entirely undocumented.
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 ('Page') and resource ('native user node IDs and reference coordinates'), so the agent knows this lists nodes and their coordinates. It is clear on its own, but does not differentiate from siblings such as list_parts or extract_d3plot_nodal, leaving the agent to infer boundaries.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling listing/extraction tools. The agent gets no routing help for choosing list_nodes over extract_d3plot_nodal or get_element_connectivity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.