Flatten a reservoir simulation deck and all its INCLUDEs into a single file using opmpack, eliminating external dependencies for portability and sharing.
Flatten a deck and all its INCLUDEs into a single file using opmpack.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deck_path | Yes | ||
| output_dir | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that output is a single file, but does not explain output location, whether files may be overwritten, external command side effects, or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that creates artifacts.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It communicates the core action, target, and result efficiently.
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 no annotations and zero schema description coverage, this is incomplete. An agent is left guessing where the flattened file is written, what output_dir controls, and whether the tool modifies the original deck. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the missing usage and output-location guidance are still important gaps.
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, but it adds little parameter-level detail. It indirectly clarifies that deck_path refers to the deck whose INCLUDEs are flattened, but it says nothing about output_dir, its optionality, or its default behavior.
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 ('flatten') with a clear resource ('a deck and all its INCLUDEs') and a concrete result ('into a single file'). It clearly distinguishes pack_deck from sibling tools like validate_deck, summarize_deck, and convert_ecl by naming the exact packaging action.
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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clone_deck, convert_ecl, or deck_text. The usage context is only implied by the action word 'flatten', with no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.