Skip to main content
Glama
gchen19

AnkusDrive

by gchen19
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

standard_part_designate

Convert a purchased part into an orderable designation such as "ISO 4762 M4×12 A2" from a handle, raw string, or family spec, and report missing facts instead of guessing.

Instructions

The canonical, orderable designation of a purchased standard part — the string a buyer can actually quote against: "ISO 4762 M4×12 A2", "608-2RS", "AS568-214 NBR70". A BOM row that reads "SocketHeadCapScrew" is not a buyable line; this is what turns it into one.

Three ways in: handle read the designation add_fastener / add_bearing / add_thread stamped on the part when it was built. An object with no stamp reports designation=None plus whether its NAME reads like a purchased part. Nothing is ever inferred from geometry, so a hand-modelled bracket cannot acquire a false designation. designation normalise/parse a string — 'iso4762 m4x12 a2' becomes 'ISO 4762 M4×12 A2', so two spellings of one part can never become two BOM lines. family+spec build one from facts. family is fastener | bearing | oring | threaded_rod, and spec is respectively {kind, size, length, grade} / {designation, seals} / {inner_diameter, cross_section, compound} / {diameter, pitch, length, grade}.

Offline and deterministic — no network, no supplier, no credentials.

Returns the designation card: {ok, family, standard, designation, complete, reason, purchased, ...family-specific fields}. complete=False means the string is not yet enough to order against (typically nobody said which material grade), with reason naming the gap — a missing fact is reported, never defaulted to a plausible-looking lie.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
specNo
familyNo
handleNo
designationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: offline/deterministic, no network/supplier/credentials, never infers designation from geometry, and complete=False is explicitly defined as a gap report with a reason rather than a silently defaulted value. These are exactly the traits an agent needs and that structured fields do not supply.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose, then a clean labelled list of the three input modes, then the return shape; each block is scannable and earns its place. It is somewhat long and carries rhetorical flourish ('a plausible-looking lie', 'not a buyable line') that costs a little density.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 4-optional-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, all input modes, the return structure (ok/family/standard/designation/complete/reason/purchased) and the safety profile. Nothing the agent needs to call it correctly or interpret output is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents handle, designation (with an example normalization), and family+spec including the four family values and their respective spec key sets. It stops short of stating mutual exclusivity or precedence when several modes are supplied, which the schemas (all optional, additionalProperties=true) leave ambiguous.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: producing the canonical, orderable designation string of a purchased standard part, with concrete examples ('ISO 4762 M4×12 A2', '608-2RS'). The BOM-row framing ('SocketHeadCapScrew is not a buyable line') makes the distinction from nearby siblings like designation_check and catalog_search immediately clear.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly enumerates 'Three ways in' (handle, designation, family+spec) and describes the input each expects, which tells the agent how to call it. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use this one (e.g. vs designation_check or catalog_check), leaving that routing to inference.

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