Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

materials

by com.spacemushroom
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Materials used for a part function

materials_used_by_function
Read-onlyIdempotent

Which materials products use for a kind of part, with how many products and parts, example products, and the forms, finishes and standards that come with each: "I am designing a 3U CubeSat structure for LEO: what materials, forms, finishes and standards do comparable products use" = part_function structure + kind structure + size 3U. Narrow the set of products with the same filters as find_products (category, kind, size, orbit, maker, text, bom_depth). Rows are ranked by number of products. The function tags are derived from part names; counts are of what the catalogue holds, not a survey of the industry. Use the material ids with get_material, and the example product ids with get_product.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "materials_used_by_function"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoplatform, structure, satellite, mission or component
sizeNoSize tag, for example 3U
textNoWords the products must contain
limitNoMaximum materials, 1 to 100 (default 30)
makerNoMaker name
orbitNoOrbit tag, for example "low earth"
categoryNoCatalogue group, as in find_products
bom_depthNoOnly products with this parts-list depth
part_functionNoLeave out for all functions

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read, but the description adds real behavioral context: rows are ranked by product count, function tags are derived from part names, and counts reflect the catalogue rather than an industry survey. It does not describe limit/pagination behavior or how ties in ranking are handled, but the important caveats are disclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose, example, filter set, ranking, caveat, and follow-up ids are front-loaded and every sentence carries information. The long colon-led example sentence is slightly dense but still readable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a nine-parameter read-only aggregate with no output schema, the description tells the agent what each row contains (counts, example products, forms, finishes, standards) and warns about derived tags and catalogue-bounded counts. Limit behavior and empty-result behavior are left to the schema and inference, but nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by showing how part_function, kind, and size combine in a concrete query, and by confirming that the remaining filters behave exactly as in find_products, which is conceptual meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: which materials products use for a kind of part, including counts, example products, forms, finishes, and standards. The opening clause and example query make it unmistakable against find_products, which returns products rather than material aggregates.

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?

Gives a worked example (part_function structure + kind structure + size 3U), explains that the product set is narrowed with the same filters as find_products, and routes material ids to get_material and product ids to get_product. It does not explicitly contrast with the close siblings find_materials or products_using_material, so an agent could still hesitate between them.

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

All materials toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources