Add a discrete S-parameter port with a defined reference impedance to CST models, ensuring safe, accurate excitation for microstrip feeds.
Add a discrete S-parameter port with an explicit reference impedance (safe for microstrip feeds).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | ||
| point1 | Yes | ||
| point2 | Yes | ||
| monitor | No | ||
| impedance | No | ||
| port_number | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Add' implies a model mutation, but the description does not disclose permissions, side effects, interaction with existing ports, or what the active project state must be. It adds only the microstrip-safety context, which is useful but far from sufficient for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Although it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, that issue is captured in other dimensions; as a matter of conciseness and structure, it contains no wasted language.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema parameter descriptions, the definition is far too thin. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but the agent still lacks critical context about prerequisites, parameter meaning, and side effects.
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%, so the description must compensate for six undocumented parameters. It only hints at the impedance parameter via 'explicit reference impedance' and does not explain point1, point2 coordinate formats, port_number, label, or monitor. This leaves most parameter semantics unclear.
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: adding a discrete S-parameter port. It also adds a meaningful differentiator, 'explicit reference impedance (safe for microstrip feeds)', which helps distinguish it from a generic or waveguide-port tool. It does not explicitly name or compare against the sibling cst_add_waveguide_port_tool, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 phrase 'safe for microstrip feeds' implies a use case and therefore some guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. The agent must infer that this is the right port type for microstrip scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.