Normalize a COBie workbook to a canonical structure without modifying the source file, enabling consistent data representation for validation and reporting.
Shadow canonical normalization for a COBie workbook without modifying the file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| excel_path | Yes |
| 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 mentions the file is not modified, which is a useful side-effect guarantee. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose what the tool actually does beyond the vague 'shadow canonical normalization' or whether any other state is changed.
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 short but not clear; the phrase 'shadow canonical normalization' is overly terse and jargon-heavy. It lacks a functional explanation and front-loads ambiguous terminology instead of actionable details.
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 tool description does not specify the output, return format, or behavioral guarantees beyond not modifying the file. Given the large set of sibling tools and the single parameter, the description is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect or how to interpret results.
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 only parameter, excel_path, has no schema description and the tool description does not explain its format, expected file type, or constraints. This leaves the agent with no meaningful semantic information about the input.
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 specific verb ('normalize') and resource ('COBie workbook'), and notes it does not modify the file, which helps distinguish it from update-oriented tools. However, 'Shadow canonical normalization' is jargon and does not clearly explain what normalization means or what the tool returns.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as validate_cobie, update_cobie, or load_cobie_summary. It does not mention alternatives or conditions that would make this tool the preferred choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.