materials-studio-mcp-moc

md_project_transition

Apply an audited project lifecycle transition in Materials Studio, specifying target status and reason, with optional evidence IDs and dry-run mode.

Instructions

Apply one audited, legal project lifecycle transition with a v1 result envelope.

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>",
      "target_status": "<target_status>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "md_project_transition"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	Yes
`dry_run`	No
`evidence_ids`	No
`target_status`	Yes
`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

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, but it does not. It lacks any mention of mutations, dry-run behavior (which is in schema), permissions, or what an 'audited' and 'legal' transition entails.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified; it omits critical information and uses unclear terminology. It is concise in length but not in substance.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is grossly insufficient. It fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, or what the implications of a transition are.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameters (project_directory, target_status, reason, dry_run, evidence_ids). It also doesn't clarify what constitutes a 'legal' transition or valid target_status values.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states it 'applies one audited, legal project lifecycle transition' but uses vague jargon ('audited', 'legal', 'v1 result envelope') without explaining what the transition does. It does not clearly distinguish from siblings like md_project_set_quality_gate or md_project_validate.

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 this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of preconditions, alternatives, or exclusion cases.

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

Deploy Server