materials-studio-mcp-moc

ms_detect_installation

Identify whether BIOVIA Materials Studio 2023 is installed on the system and retrieve its essential directory paths for use in subsequent workflow steps.

Instructions

Detect the local BIOVIA Materials Studio 2023 installation and key paths.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ms_detect_installation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Detect' suggests a read-only operation, but the description doesn't explicitly state whether it modifies anything, requires permissions, or what happens if the installation is missing. It's adequate for a simple detection tool but lacks explicit safety disclosure.

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, directly stating the action and target. No fluff or redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the verb 'Detect'.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter detection tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what to expect (detected installation and key paths). However, it doesn't mention whether this is a prerequisite for other tools or any failure modes, which would be useful context. Given the low complexity, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. No additional semantics are required.

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 'detect' and clearly names the resource: 'local BIOVIA Materials Studio 2023 installation and key paths.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ms_moc_get_status or ms_castep_preflight, which target other aspects. It's explicit and unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies it's for finding installation paths, but doesn't state if it should be run before other MS tools or what conditions require it. This is a clear gap.

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

Deploy Server