Return the bundled factors, densities, coverages, waste defaults, purchase increments, unit conversions, sources, and raw-pack SHA.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists return data without mentioning authorization, idempotency, performance implications, or whether the operation is read-only. Critical gaps exist for a get-like tool.
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?
A single sentence efficiently enumerates all bundled data elements. Every clause adds value, and the verbiage is front-loaded with the action verb.
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 that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, but it helpfully lists key components. No parameters simplifies completeness. Minor ambiguity about which pack is returned (no identifier) is addressed by the zero-parameter design.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly does not need to add meaning for parameters. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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 'Return' as a specific verb and lists the exact data elements (factors, densities, coverages, etc.) that the tool provides. This clearly identifies the resource (material pack) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_material_pack.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_material_pack or get_assembly. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
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 serves a distinct purpose: calculation, server info, retrieval of assemblies and material packs, listing, and verification. No overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., calculate_takeoff, list_assemblies, get_material_pack).
7 tools is well-scoped for a quantity takeoff server, covering listing, retrieving, calculating, and verifying without being excessive or sparse.
The tool set covers core workflows: listing, retrieval, calculation, and verification. Minor gaps like managing previous takeoffs or creating assemblies are absent but acceptable for a read-only planning estimate server.