materials-studio-mcp-moc

md_project_set_quality_gate

Record quality-gate decisions with structured evidence in the project manifest for reproducible, auditable Materials Studio workflows.

Instructions

Record a quality-gate decision and structured evidence in the project manifest.

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": {
      "project_directory": "<project_directory>",
      "gate": "<gate>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "md_project_set_quality_gate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gate`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`dry_run`	No
`evidence`	No
`project_directory`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 implies a write operation but does not disclose persistence behavior, idempotency, the effect of the 'dry_run' parameter (defaulting to true), or any potential side effects such as overwriting existing data.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant phrasing. However, its extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail, preventing a higher score for structure.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—5 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, though an output schema exists—the description is far too sparse. It omits critical context such as dry_run behavior, evidence schema expectations, and gate/status semantics, making safe invocation difficult.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It only vaguely refers to 'quality-gate decision' and 'structured evidence' but fails to explain the meaning or allowed values of gate, status, evidence, dry_run, and project_directory beyond their schema types.

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 clearly states the action 'Record' and the specific resource: a quality-gate decision and structured evidence, with the target being the project manifest. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other project aspects like registration, validation, or transitions.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, project state conditions, or situations where this tool should be preferred over similar project management operations.

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

Deploy Server