Material Maker MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

activate_material

Idempotent

Switch the active Material Maker material tab by supplying a material ID from list_materials, enabling agents to focus the correct graph for editing, preview, or export tasks.

Instructions

Activate one material tab by an ID returned from list_materials.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "material_id": "<material_id>"
    },
    "name": "activate_material"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`material_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that activation applies to a single tab, with no detail on side effects, state changes, or error conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One tight sentence with the action and its ID provenance front-loaded. Nothing extraneous.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a single-parameter, idempotent, non-destructive activation tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient; only failure behavior is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It usefully identifies valid IDs as those returned by list_materials, which is real added meaning, but says nothing about format or what happens with an invalid/stale ID.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (activate) and resource (one material tab), and ties the operation to the correct ID source. It is distinguishable from siblings like load_material or save_material, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those near-neighbors.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The prerequisite is implied clearly: the ID must come from list_materials. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as load_material or new_material, so usage is only partially covered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.