Skip to main content
Glama
roynertr

COBie MCP

by roynertr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_document

Adds a document row to a COBie Excel file, linking a file to an entity, with validation before writing.

Instructions

Add a new COBie Document row to link a file/reference to a COBie entity.

Proactive validation: calls validate_document_input internally before writing.

Args:
    excel_path: Path to COBie Excel file
    name: Unique document identifier (e.g. 'DOC-2026-001')
    sheet_name: Target sheet (Component, Type, Space, Floor, etc.)
    row_name: Target entity name (must exist in target sheet)
    category: Document type from PickList.DocumentType
    approval_by: Approver from PickList.ApprovalBy
    stage: Stage from PickList.StageType
    directory: File directory path or 'n/a'
    file: File name or 'n/a'
    description: Document description (default 'n/a')
    reference: External reference URL (default 'n/a')
    actor_contact: Contact creating the document (CreatedBy)
    as_of_date: Creation date (defaults to today)
    dry_run: Preview changes without writing

Returns:
    Result with success status, created row number, and any errors.

Example:
    add_document(
        excel_path="project.xlsx",
        name="DOC-AHU1-MANUAL",
        sheet_name="Component",
        row_name="AHU-1",
        category="Operation and Maintenance",
        approval_by="Information Only",
        stage="As Built",
        directory="/docs/equipment",
        file="AHU-1-manual.pdf",
        description="Equipment operation manual",
        actor_contact={"email": "user@company.com", "company": "ACME", "phone": "555-1234", "category": "CM"}
    )

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNon/a
nameYes
stageYes
dry_runNo
categoryYes
row_nameYes
directoryNon/a
referenceNon/a
as_of_dateNo
excel_pathYes
sheet_nameYes
approval_byYes
descriptionNon/a
actor_contactNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions that validate_document_input is called internally before writing, that dry_run previews without writing, and it summarizes return fields. It does not detail in-place editing behavior or duplicate-name handling, but the core side effects are disclosed.

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 well-structured with Args and an example, and no significant filler. It is somewhat long due to the number of parameters, but every section supports correct usage.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—14 parameters, validation behavior, and write side effects—the description is complete. It includes parameter meanings, defaults, dry_run semantics, return information, and a thorough example, so an agent has enough context to call it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema itself has 0% description coverage, the Args section explains all 14 parameters, including defaults, purpose, and expected formats. The example further clarifies actor_contact structure and typical usage, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the action: 'Add a new COBie Document row to link a file/reference to a COBie entity.' It identifies the specific resource and purpose, distinguishing it from read-only or update-oriented sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended use is implied by 'Add a new COBie Document row,' and the description mentions internal validation and dry_run, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like update_cobie or validate_document_input, nor state when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools