Retrieves the currently loaded material library, including materials, thicknesses, descriptions, and cut settings, so AI assistants can review and apply the right entry to a project.
Requires capability "project". The currently loaded material library (LightBurn: flat entries with material, thickness, description, guid and a full cut setting; MillMage: operations library trees).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the required capability and the shape of returned data per application variant, but omits whether the call fails or returns empty without a project, whether it is read-only (only implied by 'get'/'currently loaded'), and any error behavior.
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 short sentences with the prerequisite front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is a sentence fragment ('The currently loaded material library…') that reads more like a title than a description, but it is information-dense rather than wasteful.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description reasonably compensates by enumerating expected fields for LightBurn and noting MillMage returns operation trees. For a zero-parameter getter this is nearly sufficient; only edge-case behavior (no project loaded, empty library) is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No misleading parameter text is present.
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?
States the resource precisely — the currently loaded material library — and goes further by explaining that the payload differs by host application (LightBurn flat entries vs. MillMage operation trees). The verb is only implied by the name, but the resource and contents are unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like get_cuts.
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 prerequisite 'Requires capability "project"' is a real usage condition, telling the agent when the call is valid. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of what happens when no project is loaded, and no routing versus related tools such as get_cuts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.