rocky_get_grid_function_statsRetrieve the minimum and maximum values of a named grid function across the simulation time set, with optional unit conversion.
Read the minimum and maximum of a grid function over the time set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Grid function name, for example ``"Velocity : Translational : Absolute"``. | |
| unit | No | Unit of the reported values. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Read' makes the non-mutating nature clear and 'over the time set' usefully scopes the statistic to the temporal domain rather than space. However, it discloses nothing about required session/project state or failure behavior when the name is invalid.
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?
A single sentence that leads with the verb and resource and contains no filler. Nothing to trim.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with a fully documented schema, the description supplies everything essential for a simple two-parameter read, though prerequisite state (open project) is left implicit.
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 100%: both the name parameter (with a concrete example) and the unit parameter are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, such as whether unit converts values or filters them, so the baseline 3 applies.
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: reads the min/max of a named grid function over the time set. That is clearly distinct from rocky_get_curve (curve data) and rocky_list_grid_functions (enumeration). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to prefer this over rocky_get_curve or rocky_list_grid_functions, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., an open project, or that the grid function name must come from rocky_list_grid_functions). The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.