Skip to main content
Glama
roynertr

COBie MCP

by roynertr

suggest_document_path

Recommends a directory and file path for adding a document, based on sheet, row, and filename. Does not modify the file system; useful for previewing or planning document organization.

Instructions

Return recommended Directory and File for add_document.

Does not touch the file system. Use when organizing manually or to preview paths.

Args:
    sheet_name: Target sheet (Component, Type, Space, etc.)
    row_name: Target entity name
    filename: File name
    docs_root: Base folder for document organization (default 'docs')

Returns:
    Dictionary with recommended directory and file paths

Example:
    result = suggest_document_path(
        sheet_name="Component",
        row_name="AHU-1",
        filename="manual.pdf"
    )
    # Returns: {"directory": "docs/Component/AHU-1", "file": "manual.pdf"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes
row_nameYes
docs_rootNodocs
sheet_nameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool has no file-system side effects and only returns a suggested path, which is the key behavioral trait.

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, front-loaded with purpose and safety, and includes a concrete example that clarifies input and output. No unnecessary wording is present.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, side effects, and return shape, with an example illustrating the result. It does not exhaustively document edge cases, but the information provided is sufficient for typical use.

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 input schema provides no descriptions, but the description gives meaningful context for all four parameters, including example values and the default for docs_root. It does not specify constraints or formats, but the meaning is clear.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return recommended Directory and File') and resource ('for add_document'), and clarifies it is for manual organization or path previewing, distinguishing it from sibling tools like organize_document_file.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly notes it does not touch the file system and frames usage around manual organization or previewing paths. It does not name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear enough.

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