Calculate an auditable material takeoff from explicit geometry or a supported SmartScale/ProtoGen measurement payload. Returns net, explicit waste-adjusted, and conservative purchase quantities. This is a planning estimate, not a guaranteed material order or professional certification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| options | No | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| payment_ref | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / request_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Request Id"
+}Input schema / properties / payment_refAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Payment Ref"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that it returns net, waste-adjusted, and conservative purchase quantities and by clarifying that the result is a planning estimate rather than a guaranteed order or certification.
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 three tightly written sentences with no wasted text. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by return values and an important caveat.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, given the completely undocumented input schema, especially the untyped items array and options object, the description is not complete enough to tell an agent exactly how to construct a valid call.
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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining four parameters, including a complex items array and an opaque options object. It partially compensates by naming explicit geometry and SmartScale/ProtoGen payloads as input sources, but it does not explain the structure of items, options, request_id, or payment_ref.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Calculate an auditable material takeoff." It also names the accepted input modes (explicit geometry or SmartScale/ProtoGen payload), which clearly separates this computation tool from retrieval-oriented siblings such as get_material_pack and list_assemblies.
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 states the input contexts in which the tool applies, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives or when not to use it. The caveat that it is a planning estimate implies boundaries, but routing guidance is only implicit.
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.