Retrieve a sheet metal component's flat pattern data, including unfolded size, thickness and bend count, to verify if the part exists and inspect its bends for fabrication.
Read a component's flat pattern: size, thickness and bends, or exists=false.
Returns {"component", "exists", "size_mm", "thickness_mm", "bend_count", "bends"}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| component | No | Component or occurrence ref; default: the root component |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so reasonably: "Read" communicates a non-mutating operation, and it discloses the exists=false behavior plus the returned fields. It does not cover prerequisites, permissions, or error cases, but the core read behavior is transparent.
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?
The description is two compact sentences with no wasted wording. The operation is front-loaded, followed by the return shape, making it easy to scan.
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 low-complexity read tool with a fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and existence behavior. It is nearly complete, though it lacks routing guidance for missing flat patterns and alternatives.
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 coverage is 100%, and the single optional component parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default of the root component. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource, "Read a component's flat pattern," and names the returned data: size, thickness, and bends. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as sheet_metal_list_bends or sheet_metal_create_flat_pattern.
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?
It implies reading an existing flat pattern and notes the exists=false case, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not tell the agent when to call sheet_metal_create_flat_pattern, sheet_metal_list_bends, or other sheet-metal tools instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.