Append a named block to the model history tree in CST Studio Suite. Provide a title and VBA code to script geometry, mesh, or solver steps.
Append one named block to the model history tree (geometry, mesh, solver, ...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| vba_code | 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 burden. It does not disclose that vba_code is likely executed, whether the operation is reversible, whether it mutates the project state, or what happens on invalid code — material traits for a write tool with a code parameter.
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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and the example list kept short. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse for the risk profile of the operation.
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 explained. However, for a mutation tool with a raw-code parameter and zero annotations, the description omits safety, side-effect, and parameter-format information that an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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. 'One named block' loosely maps to 'title', but the required 'vba_code' parameter is never explained — no format, language, or expected content is given.
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 ('Append') and resource ('model history tree'), with parenthetical examples of block types. It is clear what the tool does, though it offers no differentiation from the many sibling *_tool entries that presumably also touch history or VBA.
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 use this versus cst_run_vba_tool or cst_runtime_invoke_tool, no prerequisites, no mention of ordering constraints within the history tree. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.