Retrieves floor records from a COBie Floor sheet or project graph, with optional query and limit parameters for filtering and pagination.
List all floors from the Floor sheet or project graph when canonical mode is enabled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| excel_path | Yes | ||
| project_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?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, read-only behavior, or return format. The simple 'List all floors' provides minimal behavioral expectations beyond the action itself.
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 unnecessary detail or repetition. It is well-structured and easy to read.
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 omits important context such as the meaning of 'canonical mode', how the source is selected, what 'q' and 'limit' do, and the shape of the output. While an output schema exists, it is not detailed enough to fill these gaps.
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?
The description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters (q, limit, excel_path, project_id). With 0% schema description coverage, the tool relies entirely on parameter names, which are insufficient for an agent to use it correctly.
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 states a clear action ('List all floors') and identifies the data sources ('Floor sheet or project graph'), but the phrase 'when canonical mode is enabled' introduces ambiguity about when each source is used, making it less crisp than it could be.
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 given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like graph_list_floors or graph_list_floors_tool. The conditional 'when canonical mode is enabled' is not explained, so an agent cannot determine the appropriate usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.