worldparts

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

describe_component

Read-only

Retrieve full usage specifications for water-system components by ID, including ports, parameters, states, warnings, and bindings—pass multiple IDs in one call for ordered results.

Instructions

Describe component types: everything needed to use them.

Pass every component you need as a list in one call: the result is then {components: [...]} in that order (one id: one description). Each has ports; parameters and inputs with units, defaults and hard limits (table columns in row order); states and observables; modes (the first whose condition holds is reported); warning codes; scenario and contract ids; bindings. Plain numbers are in these units; pressures are gauge unless stated; quantity 'temperature_difference' converts by scale only. A state's steady is 'settle' (solve sets its equilibrium) or 'hold' (solve keeps it, e.g. a tank level). A warning's source is 'envelope' (its condition holds) or 'component' (raised by code; message says when).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`detail`	No	'brief': what is needed to use the part. 'full' adds scenario systems and expectations (templates), contract rules, binding notes and provenance (several times larger).	brief
`component`	Yes	Id or alias, or a list of up to 12 to describe in one call, e.g. ['tank', 'centrifugal_pump', 'pipe'].

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even though readOnlyHint=true is already in annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: batch ordering with {components: [...]}, the meaning of state 'steady' values, warning source semantics, and unit conventions for pressures and temperature_difference. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 every sentence carries useful information: purpose, batching behavior, returned content, units, and special semantics. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. A bulleted layout might improve readability, but there is no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex introspection tool, the description covers the essential ground: what the output contains, ordering guarantees, unit conventions, state semantics, and warning semantics. Combined with the output schema and readOnly annotation, an agent has enough information to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including enums, defaults, maxItems, and examples; schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces batching with 'as a list in one call' and output ordering, but it does not add significant new semantic meaning to the parameters themselves.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Describe component types: everything needed to use them.' It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like list_components (which would just enumerate components) and get_system (which targets a whole system), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you need details required to use components. It also provides a concrete usage pattern: 'Pass every component you need as a list in one call.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended context is clear.

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