Material Maker MCP

by Tigertycoon

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

load_material

Open an existing .ptex material from an absolute or user-relative path to inspect, edit, or reuse it in Material Maker.

Instructions

Load an existing .ptex material from an absolute or user-relative path.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "load_material"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, telling the agent this mutates session state and is not repeatable-safe. The description adds only the constraint that the material must already exist and that paths may be absolute or user-relative; it says nothing about failure when the file is missing or what state is affected.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the path guidance is appended where it is relevant. Slightly terse rather than overly long, which is the right failure mode here.

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

Completeness3/5

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a mutation-flagged loader the description omits what happens on a missing/invalid file and any permission context, leaving real gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the weight for the single 'path' parameter. It clarifies that either an absolute or user-relative path is accepted, which is genuinely beyond the bare schema, but gives no format examples or constraints (extensions, separators).

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 (load) and resource (.ptex material), and adds the path semantics that qualify the operation. It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like list_materials or activate_material, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The use case (bringing an existing material file into the session) is only implied by the name and description.

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