Lists ME-related machine parts with ID, Chinese name, and whether each can be placed into a multiblock. Use it to identify valid ME components for multiblock builds.
ME 相关机器部件清单（id、中文名、是否可放进多方块）。
| 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields, which helps, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only reference list with no side effects or parameters. The noun '清单' implies a safe lookup, but the safety profile is not formally declared.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element—resource scope and returned fields—earns its place.
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 the zero-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns by listing the fields in the response. The main remaining gap is routing guidance relative to sibling tools, which is handled separately under usage guidelines.
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 has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.
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 names a specific resource, 'ME-related machine parts,' and enumerates the returned fields (id, Chinese name, multiblock placement flag). It is clear what the tool provides, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like machine or material.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as machine, machines_for, or material. The description simply states what the tool lists, leaving selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.