Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
materials-studio-mcp-moc

materials-studio-mcp-moc

by christopher2lllp3t-cell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ms_list_example_documents

List built-in Materials Studio example documents, including .xsd and .xtd, to locate sample models for simulations.

Instructions

List built-in Materials Studio example documents such as .xsd and .xtd.

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_list_example_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patternNo*.xsd
max_resultsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list', implying a read-only operation, but does not mention side effects, requirements, or error behavior. This is minimal guidance that adds little beyond the tool name.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple with optional parameters and an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. However, it leaves ambiguity around how pattern works (glob syntax) and what happens with max_results. It is minimally adequate but lacks some operational details.

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%, so the description should compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description hints at file extensions (.xsd, .xtd) but does not explain the pattern or max_results parameters. The defaults in the schema help, but overall the description adds marginal value.

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 (List), the resource (built-in Materials Studio example documents), and provides examples (.xsd, .xtd). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ms_list_analysis_targets and ms_scan_workspace, which target different resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for discovering available example documents, but it doesn't explicitly specify when to choose this over alternatives or mention exclusions. The context is clear enough for a simple list operation, but no comparative guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools