Find substitute / equivalent / cross-referenced part numbers from the PartsTable cross-reference graph (591K+ verified pairs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| partNumber | Yes | Part number to find substitutes for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup from a specific graph with 591K+ pairs, but does not disclose return format, error handling, or case sensitivity. For a simple tool this is adequate but not thorough.
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 wasted words. It clearly states the action, resource, and relevant context (source and scale).
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers core purpose and source well. However, it does not specify the output format, which would be helpful for an agent without an output schema.
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 100% (the parameter has a description). The tool description adds meaningful context: 'from the PartsTable cross-reference graph (591K+ verified pairs)', which enhances the schema by specifying the data source and scale.
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-resource pair ('Find substitute / equivalent / cross-referenced part numbers') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get-part (retrieve part details) and search-parts (general search).
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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search-parts or get-part. It does not provide any exclusion criteria or usage context beyond stating the data source.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving a single part record, finding substitutes, normalizing part numbers, batch searching, and validating existence. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get-part, normalize-pn, validate-pn) using snake_case. The naming is predictable and easy to understand.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for a read-only parts catalog. Each tool serves a essential function without being too few or overly numerous.
The tool set covers the core operations needed for a parts table: record retrieval, cross-reference lookup, normalization, batch existence check, and validation. There are no obvious gaps given the read-only design.
