Starting cutting-speed and feed ranges for coated-carbide TURNING by ISO 513 material group (P steel, M stainless, K cast iron, N aluminium, S_TI titanium, S_NI nickel superalloy, H hardened steel). These are deliberately wide practice ranges, not from any one catalog; the maker's data for the exact grade always wins.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iso_group | Yes | ISO 513 group. Use S_TI for titanium, S_NI for nickel superalloys. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the ranges are approximate practice ranges, not catalog data, and that exact-grade data takes precedence. This is useful context for interpreting results.
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 sentences with no filler. The main content is front-loaded, and the caveat about exact-grade data is included without bloating the description.
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?
For a simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states input scope, material classes, and the approximate nature of the data. The only minor gap is that units and the exact return structure of the ranges are not specified.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by expanding each ISO group into its material type (e.g., M stainless, N aluminium) and by clarifying S_TI and S_NI, which goes beyond the schema's brief enum description.
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 identifies the resource: starting cutting-speed and feed ranges for coated-carbide turning by ISO 513 material group. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return', but the scope is specific and distinct from the sibling cross-reference tools.
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 implies when to use the tool by labeling the values as 'starting' and 'deliberately wide practice ranges', and it warns that exact-grade maker data wins. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to prefer them.
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 targets a distinct reference category: insert grades, workpiece materials, and cutting parameters. They share ISO 513 groups as a connecting concept, but there is no functional overlap or ambiguity about which tool to invoke.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and a consistent descriptive noun-compound style, such as grade_cross_reference and material_cross_reference. speeds_feeds_starting_values follows the same convention even though it describes a lookup rather than a cross-reference.
Three focused tools are well-scoped for this server's purpose. Each tool is non-redundant and contributes a meaningful reference function without bloat or unnecessary overlap.
The tool set forms a coherent machining-reference workflow: identify material standards and ISO group, find equivalent insert grades, and obtain starting speeds/feeds for the relevant machining group. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations within the stated reference scope.