Inspect an existing Mechanical system via its Workbench Model container to audit configuration and readiness. Provide project path and system name for read-only verification.
[READ ONLY] Audit an existing Mechanical system through its Workbench Model container.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| system_name | Yes | ||
| project_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly labels the tool as '[READ ONLY]', which is a useful behavioral disclosure given that no annotations were provided. Beyond that, it does not describe what the audit checks, what side effects (if any) occur, or what outcome the caller should expect, so behavioral transparency remains limited.
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 short and front-loads the read-only intent. It contains no filler, but it is so brief that it leans toward under-specification, so it does not earn a 5.
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 and no parameter guidance, the description leaves important gaps: what 'audit' verifies, whether the project must be open, and what kind of output an agent should expect. The existence of an output schema helps but does not make the description complete.
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 explain either project_path or system_name beyond implying the system must already exist. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little over the raw schema and does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 ('Audit') and names the resource ('Mechanical system through its Workbench Model container'). However, it does not explain what 'audit' actually covers or how it differs from siblings like inspect_workbench_project or get_model_summary.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_model_summary, get_messages, or inspect_workbench_project. The description does not mention preconditions, exclusions, or a preferred context, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.