Checks the Vectorworks bridge by returning the Vectorworks version, active document, and bridge version, and warns if the installed bridge mismatches this server.
Check the Vectorworks bridge: returns Vectorworks version, active document and bridge version. Warns if the installed bridge doesn't match this server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: it lists the three returned values and discloses a warning-on-mismatch condition, which is non-obvious diagnostic behavior. It does not cover failure modes (e.g. what happens when the bridge is unreachable), keeping it out of the top band.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose and return payload are front-loaded before the warning behavior. Every clause carries information.
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?
For a zero-argument diagnostic with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what comes back and the key behavioral signal (version-mismatch warning). An agent has enough to call it correctly, though it doesn't say what output looks like on connection failure.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming it is argument-free.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Check the Vectorworks bridge') and enumerates what it returns (Vectorworks version, active document, bridge version), which distinguishes it from data-retrieval siblings like vw_document_info. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces, so it lands just under the top band.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of warning on a version mismatch suggests this is a connectivity/health check run before other operations, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use this for...' guidance. No alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.