Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ArchScript MCP

ArchScript MCP

by schlummer13
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Create a document

create_document

Opens a new ArchScript window from complete source and returns its id plus diagnostics, so you can start modeling and catch errors immediately.

Instructions

Opens a new ArchScript window with the given source and returns its id and diagnostics.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "create_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesComplete ArchScript source.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the core effect (opening a new window) and that it returns an id and diagnostics, which is useful because no output schema exists, but it omits validation behavior, side effects, and failure modes.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and including the return value; no redundant wording.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter creation tool, the description covers the main action and return values. However, with no annotations or output schema, it should say more about validation, persistence, and how it relates to the edit/set siblings.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is a single parameter with full schema coverage, and the description only says 'with the given source,' adding little beyond the schema's 'Complete ArchScript source.' The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific action ('Opens a new ArchScript window') and resource ('document/ArchScript window') and states what it returns. It does not explicitly contrast with edit_document or set_document_source, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use create_document versus edit_document, set_document_source, or validate. The word 'new' implies creation, but the description provides no exclusions or prerequisites.

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