view_bomComposes the BOM for a reference build and renders it as an interactive view in clients that support MCP Apps. Same data as build_bom.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| choices | No | ||
| build_id | Yes | 2wd-robot, weather-station or plant-waterer |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build | Yes | ||
| lines | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it renders interactively and has the same data as build_bom, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 concise and front-loaded: one sentence states the action and rendering, and a second sentence clarifies the relationship to build_bom. No unnecessary words.
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?
The tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and an output schema, so the description is mostly complete. It could mention how choices affect the BOM rendering, but the schema provides basic param details and the output schema covers return values.
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 coverage is 50%; build_id has a helpful description in the schema, but choices is only described as an object with string properties. The tool description does not elaborate on choices or provide additional meaning beyond the schema, so it relies on the schema for parameter details.
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?
The description clearly states the tool composes a BOM for a reference build and renders it as an interactive view. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling build_bom by noting 'Same data as build_bom', which helps differentiate between the two.
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 description indicates this tool is for rendering an interactive view, implying use when a client supports MCP Apps, while build_bom is presumably for non-interactive use. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond build_bom.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The core tools are distinct, but fetch/search are aliases of get_part/search_parts, and view_bom duplicates build_bom data. Descriptions clarify the aliases, so agents can disambiguate, but the redundancy introduces minor confusion.
Most tools follow verb_noun (get_part, list_builds, check_compatibility). However, fetch and search are bare verbs, and fetch/get_part and search/search_parts show inconsistent verb choices for the same operation.
11 tools is well-scoped for a parts catalogue with search, BOM, and compatibility features. Each tool has a clear role, and no obvious bloat.
The surface covers search, retrieval, provenance, comparison, compatibility, and BOM generation. Minor gaps: no direct enumeration of parts by category (only counts) and no CRUD, but for a read-only demo catalogue this is acceptable.