kazaplan-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Kz Check Room

kz_check_room

Checks room circulation by verifying furniture clearance distances and whether doors, French windows, and open passages are reachable via 60 cm and 90 cm paths.

Instructions

Contrôle la circulation d'une pièce. issues : meubles dont le dégagement est sous la cote (derrière une chaise 75, devant un canapé 60 jusqu'à la table basse, autour d'une table à manger 110 sans compter les chaises (90 pour un îlot ou une table haute), devant une armoire 75, un buffet 60, un meuble de cuisine 90, de chaque côté d'un lit double 60). paths : depuis la porte de la pièce, chaque autre porte, porte-fenêtre ou passage ouvert est-il atteignable par un chemin de 60 cm (width60) et de 90 cm (width90) ?

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "room": "<room>"
    },
    "name": "kz_check_room"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`room`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral content: the exact clearance thresholds applied to each furniture type and the two path widths (60 cm / 90 cm) tested from the room door. However, it never states whether the tool is read-only, whether it mutates the plan, whether thresholds are configurable, or what happens when the room lacks openings or furniture.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well structured, using 'issues :' and 'paths :' labels so an agent can see the two evaluation categories immediately. The long parenthetical threshold list is verbose yet carries genuine specification content, so little of it is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the evaluation criteria are specified in detail. The remaining gaps are material for a one-parameter tool: the 'room' argument's format is undefined and the side-effect profile is undisclosed, with the description also switching languages relative to the English tool name and title.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single 'room' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what value to supply (room id, name, or object) or how a room is identified. The phrase 'd'une pièce' only implies the room is the subject, adding virtually no meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening clause 'Contrôle la circulation d'une pièce' names a specific verb (check) and a specific evaluated property (circulation/clearance), which distinguishes it from siblings like kz_room_geometry or kz_add_walls that build geometry rather than validate it. It falls short of 5 because the description never frames the tool explicitly as a diagnostic/validation report and does not name a sibling it differs from.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to run this check (before export? after furnishing?), no prerequisites such as 'the room must already have furniture and openings', and no mention of an alternative. The agent must infer usage entirely from the enumerated thresholds.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.