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

materials-studio-mcp-moc

by christopher2lllp3t-cell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ms_scan_workspace

Scan a workspace folder to identify Materials Studio files, with optional pattern filters and a configurable result cap for targeted file discovery.

Instructions

Scan a workspace folder for Materials Studio files.

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": {
      "root_dir": "<root_dir>"
    },
    "name": "ms_scan_workspace"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patternsNo
root_dirYes
max_resultsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose safety and side effects. It only says 'scan', which implies read-only but doesn't explicitly state non-destructive behavior, permissions, or recursive behavior. It doesn't add context beyond the verb.

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 sentence with no filler. It's appropriately sized for a simple scan operation.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description doesn't address how the scan behaves (e.g., recursive, file type filtering, behavior of max_results). Given zero annotations and zero parameter descriptions, the tool is under-specified for effective use.

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%, but the description doesn't explain any of the three parameters. The parameter names (patterns, root_dir, max_results) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool description adds no meaning, leaving the agent to infer how patterns and max_results interact.

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 ('Scan'), the resource ('a workspace folder'), and the specific target ('for Materials Studio files'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ms_moc_get_status or ms_search_local_help, which serve different purposes.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools such as ms_find_code_examples or ms_moc_open_document.

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