Retrieve the aggregated COBie floor hierarchy for a project, using the domain HierarchyService to return structured floor data for analysis or validation.
Read-only aggregated COBie hierarchy (floors) via domain HierarchyService.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| excel_path | No | ||
| floor_name | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| import_version_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'Read-only', making the non-mutating behavior clear. However, it does not disclose return structure, error behavior, pagination, or aggregation details beyond the word 'aggregated'.
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 concise sentence with no redundant prose. The 'via domain HierarchyService' detail adds little value but does not significantly hurt clarity.
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?
The description is too sparse for the tool's complexity: parameter semantics are absent, output behavior is not described, and no usage context is given despite the large set of sibling tools.
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 any of the six parameters. While names like project_id and floor_name are somewhat self-explanatory, q, excel_path, and import_version_id remain ambiguous and are not addressed.
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 identifies the resource as an aggregated COBie hierarchy of floors and notes it is read-only, but 'aggregated' is vague and it does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like graph_list_floors_tool or list_floors.
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 the many sibling floor/hierarchy tools, nor are any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.