Estimate rough filament mass and fastener requirements from part metadata for a given project and part name. Use this to get quick material approximations before printing.
Rough filament mass and fastener guesses from part metadata. Not a quote.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| part_name | Yes | Part name or slug. | |
| project_id | Yes | Project id. |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by labeling the output as 'rough guesses' and 'Not a quote,' which sets expectations about accuracy and scope. This is useful beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose potential failure modes or limits of the estimation logic.
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 concise sentence followed by a short exclusion statement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
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 simplicity of the tool (read-only estimation, two fully described parameters, and an output schema), the description is largely complete. It clearly states the tool's purpose and limitations. Minor omissions like prerequisites (e.g., part must exist) or error behavior are not critical for a basic read operation, and the output schema covers return details.
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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains part_name and project_id. The description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond the general 'from part metadata,' which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it produces rough estimates of filament mass and fasteners from part metadata. The explicit 'Not a quote.' exclusion clarifies scope and differentiates from any quoting tool, making its purpose unambiguous even without referencing siblings.
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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does and that it is not a quote; it does not mention any sibling tools or conditions that would select this tool over others. The usage context is implied ('rough estimates') but not articulated as a decision rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.