COBie MCP

by roynertr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

handover_readiness

Assess handover readiness by checking COBie workbooks or entities for missing required data and invalid references.

Instructions

Assess handover readiness for the workbook or a single entity (e.g. Component by Name).

Read-only. Use when the user asks "what's missing", "is this ready", or "correct this record"
and an entity (sheet + key) is in context.

Args:
    excel_path: Path to the COBie Excel file.
    sheet: Optional sheet name (e.g. "Component", "Type") to filter by entity.
    key: Optional row key (e.g. component Name) to filter by entity.

Returns:
    HandoverReadinessResult: ready, missing_required, invalid_refs, warnings,
    summary, suggested_instructions (simple deterministic fix suggestions).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	No
`sheet`	No
`excel_path`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', disclosing a key behavioral trait. It also implies the tool computes rather than modifies. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., file access errors, performance on large workbooks) or whether it caches results. Given no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and this is mostly covered but not exhaustive.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise and well-structured, with a brief summary, usage trigger, parameters, and return type. It avoids fluff and each sentence serves a purpose. The use of bullet-like formatting in the Args section enhances readability without extra verbosity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, simple return object), the description is complete enough: it specifies the input workbook, optional filters, the read-only nature, and the output fields. The return structure is covered by the output schema, so it need not be detailed here. It could mention edge cases (e.g., what happens if both sheet and key are omitted), but the 'workbook or a single entity' phrasing implies the whole-workbook case.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description adds meaning to each parameter: 'excel_path' is explained as 'Path to the COBie Excel file', and 'sheet' and 'key' are described as optional filters ('Optional sheet name...', 'Optional row key...'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this explanation compensates well and helps the agent understand how to fill the parameters.

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 tool's function: 'Assess handover readiness for the workbook or a single entity'. It uses a specific verb ('assess') and resource ('handover readiness'), and the 'e.g. Component by Name' example adds clarity. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like validate_cobie by focusing on readiness rather than validation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the user asks "what's missing", "is this ready", or "correct this record"' and notes 'Read-only' to set expectations. It also specifies the condition 'and an entity (sheet + key) is in context', which helps the agent decide between whole-workbook and single-entity assessment. This is sufficient to route to this tool over siblings.

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

Deploy Server