Renga–Codex Bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

bridge_inspect

Track Renga elements reliably by reading saved native UUIDs, parameters, definitions, and quantities, since numeric IDs change on SaveAs.

Instructions

Read saved native UUIDs, parameters/definitions, quantities. Numeric IDs can change on SaveAs.

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": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "bridge_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`details`	No
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'Read' at least implies a non-mutating operation. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact absent from structured fields: numeric IDs are unstable across SaveAs while native UUIDs are stable. It still omits pagination behavior, result size, and any permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the read action and free of filler; the ID-stability warning is placed second where it belongs. It is arguably too terse for the burden it carries, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness2/5

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

A 5-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to explain pagination, the meaning of project/kind/details, and what a result row looks like. Almost all of that is missing.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, and the description only loosely gestures at 'kind' and 'details' via mentions of parameters/definitions/quantities. limit, offset, and project are entirely unexplained, and pagination semantics for the first two are left to inference.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States a read verb and lists the data classes returned (UUIDs, parameters/definitions, quantities), which is more than a tautology. However, it never names the resource being inspected (elements, plan, model?), and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like bridge_project_info, bridge_inspect_drawings, or bridge_geometry.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives despite a crowded sibling set. The SaveAs caveat hints at a use case (stable UUID lookup across renames) but never states it as guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.