Skip to main content
Glama

Commonlands Optics: M12 Lens and C-Mount Lens Finder + Field-of-View Calculator

by com.commonlands

Recommend lenses for an application

recommend_lenses_for_application
Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank Commonlands M12 lenses and C-mount lenses for an application note such as embedded robotics, machine-vision inspection, or a required lens field of view. Use as an application shortlist helper, then call match_lens_to_sensor or calculate_field_of_view for final per-sensor HFOV/VFOV/DFOV. FoV rule: never estimate sensor-specific FoV from catalog fields; use calculate_field_of_view or match_lens_to_sensor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mountNo
maxResultsNo
applicationNo
requireInStockNo
sensorPartNumberYesSensor part number, for example IMX477.
workingDistanceMmNo
preferLowDistortionNo
desiredHorizontalFovDegNo

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) are consistent. Description adds context about the ranking nature and a critical FoV rule, but doesn't disclose rate limits or return format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences are efficient and front-loaded: first for purpose, second for usage guidance and a key constraint. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a workflow but lacks details on output format and prerequisites. It clarifies usage intent well but could be more complete about the ranking output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 13%, with only sensorPartNumber described. The description adds general context for parameters (e.g., application, working distance, FoV) but does not explain maxResults, requireInStock, etc. Does not fully compensate for low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it 'Rank Commonlands M12 lenses and C-mount lenses for an application note,' using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by naming calculate_field_of_view and match_lens_to_sensor as follow-up tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to use as an 'application shortlist helper' then call sibling tools for final FoV, and warns against estimating from catalog fields. However, it doesn't address when to use this versus other siblings like compare_lenses.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Commonlands Optics: M12 Lens and C-Mount Lens Finder + Field-of-View Calculator toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have significant overlap in purpose and trigger keywords. calculate_field_of_view, match_lens_to_sensor, and get_lens_distortion_profile all share nearly identical use-case descriptions for FOV/sensor requests, while search_catalog, search_lens_catalog, and lookup_catalog all provide search/lookup functionality with subtle differences that are easy to confuse.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., calculate_field_of_view, create_cart, get_product, read_shopify_products, submit_rfq). No mixing of styles or unpredictable naming conventions.

Tool Count3/5

With 21 tools, the surface is noticeably heavy for a lens finder and FOV calculator, especially when several tools serve status/config purposes (get_catalog_snapshot_status, get_shopify_readonly_config_status, get_shopify_ucp_readiness). It sits in the 'feels heavy' range from the rubric.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle: catalog search, product details, sensor specs, FOV calculation, lens matching, distortion profiles, Shopify carts, purchase handoff, and RFQ submission. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_cart or bulk sensor listing), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources