Validate the structure of explicit millimeter-based JSON operation plans before applying them to Renga BIM, without mutating the native model or generating a solver preview.
Validate plan structure without native mutation. This is NOT a native solver preview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operations | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the key safety trait that validation runs 'without native mutation,' which tells the agent this is a non-mutating operation. However, it says nothing about whether it touches the live model, what errors it reports, or how the plan structure is interpreted.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the core purpose comes first. It is efficient, though at the cost of leaving important detail unstated.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and a required parameter with zero documented structure. For a tool whose input is a structured plan, the description should at minimum characterize the operations format or what a valid/invalid result looks like; neither is provided.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required 'operations' parameter is an undescribed array of bare objects. The description offers no hint about what an operation entry looks like or what shape the plan must take, so the agent is left guessing the one argument it must supply.
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+resource: 'Validate plan structure.' It also carves out what it is not ('not a native solver preview'), which helps separate it from preview/solver siblings. It stops short of naming the mutating counterpart (bridge_apply_plan) or the verifier (bridge_verify) directly.
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?
The negative clause ('This is NOT a native solver preview') gives a partial when-not signal, but there is no positive guidance on when to call this versus bridge_apply_plan, bridge_preview_on_copy, or bridge_verify. Usage must be inferred from the verb 'validate.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.