重复条目。本服务已合并至 cn.rofilter/rofilter-mcp，请使用该页。
Duplicate listing — this connector has been merged into cn.rofilter/rofilter-mcp; please use that one. Same endpoint: https://rofilter.cn/mcp
按元件名称取完整参数（尺寸、性能、测试条件、极限值）。设计计算前若要核对某个元件的适用边界（最高温度、pH 范围、最大压差），用它。
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"name": "<name>"
},
"name": "get_element"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 元件名称，须与 list_elements 返回的名称完全一致 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns complete parameter data and names example limit fields, but it does not describe error behavior when the name does not match or explicitly confirm read-only semantics.
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 compact sentences with no wasted text. The retrieval behavior is front-loaded and the usage condition follows immediately.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the categories of data returned, including limit values. It is nearly complete for a simple lookup, though it omits not-found behavior and exact return structure.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage for the single required name parameter, explaining that it must exactly match a name returned by list_elements. The tool description adds little beyond restating that retrieval is by element name, so the baseline of 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: it retrieves full parameters by element name, and it enumerates the kinds of data returned (size, performance, test conditions, limit values). It does not explicitly contrast itself with list_elements in the description itself, though the schema mentions list_elements for exact name matching.
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?
It gives a clear usage condition: use it before design calculations to verify an element's applicable boundaries such as max temperature, pH range, or max pressure differential. It does not state when not to use it or name list_elements as the alternative for browsing.
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.