mech-cad-design-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

standard_part_download_register

Instructions

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": {
      "provider_id": "<provider_id>",
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "part_number": "<part_number>",
      "standard": "<standard>",
      "nominal_size": "<nominal_size>",
      "source_url": "<source_url>"
    },
    "name": "standard_part_download_register"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`standard`	Yes
`file_path`	Yes
`source_url`	Yes
`part_number`	Yes
`provider_id`	Yes
`nominal_size`	Yes
`metadata_json`	No	{}
`validation_report_path`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.11.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, authorization needs, or data requirements. It only says 'register' (implying a write) and 'full provenance,' but doesn't say whether registration is idempotent, overwrites existing parts, or enforces validation requirements.

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?

A single sentence is economical and front-loaded, but for an 8-parameter registration tool it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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?

Even with an output schema, the agent lacks guidance on required parameter semantics, registration behavior, and prerequisites. The description conveys only the high-level intent, leaving too much for the agent to infer.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The phrase 'full provenance' only vaguely gestures at source URL/validation metadata without mapping to any of the eight parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('register') with a well-defined object ('validated downloaded standard part') and a scope qualifier ('with full provenance'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools, which query providers or source status rather than creating a registration record.

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 statement of when this tool should be used versus alternatives, and no exclusions. The only implied context is that the part must already be validated and downloaded, but the description does not explain prerequisites or workflow placement.

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

Deploy Server