materials-studio-mcp-moc

ms_castep_fixed_profile_preflight

Performs read-only preflight validation of input manifest and SHA256 for the P3-C alpha-quartz CASTEP profile, confirming prerequisites are met.

Instructions

Read-only preflight for the exact P3-C alpha-quartz CASTEP profile.

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": {
      "input_manifest": "<input_manifest>",
      "input_manifest_sha256": "<input_manifest_sha256>"
    },
    "name": "ms_castep_fixed_profile_preflight"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input_manifest`	Yes
`input_manifest_sha256`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'read-only,' which is a key safety trait, but it does not describe what the preflight checks, how failures are reported, or any other side effects beyond the read-only claim.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with front-loaded 'Read-only preflight,' containing zero filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description omits essential context such as how to invoke the tool, what the input manifest should contain, and what the preflight result signifies. It is too minimal for an agent to use confidently, even for a two-parameter tool.

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 does not mention input_manifest or input_manifest_sha256 at all. The agent receives no help understanding what these parameters represent, their format, or their purpose, despite the tool name implying a fixed profile.

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 identifies the tool as a 'preflight' for a very specific resource: 'the exact P3-C alpha-quartz CASTEP profile.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like ms_castep_preflight_checked, which likely handles broader profiles.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where the fixed-profile preflight should be preferred over other preflight or gateway-readiness tools.

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

Deploy Server