List available materials in AnkusDrive, optionally filtered by category, to retrieve sorted names and categories for FreeCAD design.
List available materials, optionally filtered to one category ('aluminum' | 'steel' | 'titanium' | 'magnesium' | 'polymer' | 'glass'). Returns {count, category, materials:[{name, category}, ...]} sorted by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a safe read, and the description usefully discloses the return shape and sort order, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or behavior when the category has no matches.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the return contract and ordering. No filler, no restating the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the valid values, optionability, and return shape, which is close to sufficient. Minor gaps: no mention of empty-result or large-result behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema does not even constrain the string to an enum, so the description's inline enumeration of the six valid category values adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It also conveys that the parameter is optional via 'optionally'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List available materials') with the exact optional filter dimension. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling material-related tools (material_get, material_select), which retrieve or choose a single material rather than enumerate the catalog.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'optionally' tells the agent filtering is not required, which is useful implied usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to reach for material_list versus material_get, material_select, or catalog_search in the sibling list. Usage is inferable, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.