Set the active Materials Studio GUI document to enable subsequent stateful operations. This action targets an existing document without creating a new file.
Set the current Materials Studio GUI document for subsequent stateful operations. This does not create a file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exportFile | No | ||
| documentName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0-hardened.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it does not create a file, but omits side effects like changing the current document state, error conditions (e.g., nonexistent document), prerequisites (e.g., active GUI session), and whether previous state is overwritten. This is insufficient for a stateful operation.
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 two sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the clarification about not creating a file is useful. It is concise and well-structured, though it could benefit from a little more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
For a tool that changes state and has two parameters with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error handling, parameter semantics, and behavioral edge cases. An agent would be uncertain how to invoke it correctly, especially regarding the optional exportFile parameter.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention documentName or exportFile at all. The agent cannot infer what exportFile is for or how documentName should be formatted, leaving both parameters effectively undocumented.
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 (set) and resource (current document), and clarifies its purpose for subsequent stateful operations. It also explicitly negates file creation, which helps distinguish it from creation tools, though it doesn't name sibling tools explicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The phrase 'for subsequent stateful operations' implies a prerequisite, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like ms_gui_create_current or ms_gui_import_current.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.