lsth-mcp

bom_extract

Extract Bill of Materials from Excel files, converting rows into structured BomLine arrays that comply with the F2 data contract. Specify optional sheet and limit for targeted extraction.

Instructions

S1 — bóc BOM xlsx ra BomLine[] theo hợp đồng dữ liệu F2.

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": {
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "bom_extract"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file`	Yes
`limit`	No
`sheet`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the core transformation (xlsx to BomLine[] per the F2 contract) but does not disclose error behavior, file requirements, limit/sheet handling, or side effects. It is more informative than a tautology but leaves behavioral questions unanswered.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. However, the cryptic 'S1' and 'F2' add noise for uninitiated agents, and the structure front-loads a label rather than the core value.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not shown, the description is incomplete: it does not explain the F2 contract, parameter meanings, prerequisites (e.g., file already uploaded), or when to choose this over excel_sheets/bom_diff.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the three parameters. It provides no explanation of 'file', 'limit', or 'sheet' semantics beyond implying the file is an xlsx BOM. The parameter names are self-suggestive but not described.

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?

The description identifies a specific action ('bóc' = extract) on a specific resource (BOM xlsx) with a defined output (BomLine[]), making it distinguishable from siblings like bom_diff and excel_sheets. However, the cryptic prefixes 'S1' and 'F2' are unexplained, which slightly reduces self-contained clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use bom_extract versus alternatives such as excel_sheets or bom_diff. There is no mention of preconditions, which contract version applies, or exclusions. The implication is only from the name and action.

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

Deploy Server