Retrieve electromagnetic properties of any material from the built-in database, including permittivity, permeability, conductivity, loss tangent, and usage notes.
Get electromagnetic properties of a material from the bundled database. Returns epsilon_r, mu_r, conductivity, loss tangent, and usage notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Material name (e.g. 'Copper', 'FR-4', 'Rogers RO4003C') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned (epsilon_r, mu_r, etc.) and implies a read-only operation via 'get'. However, it does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, requires no project context, or handles errors. Still, the verb and output specification provide good transparency.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given the simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the primary purpose and return values. It could mention whether it works independently of an open project or the behavior for invalid material names, but it is mostly complete.
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?
The schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description and examples. The tool description adds context about the return values but does not enhance the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool gets electromagnetic properties of a material from the bundled database, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cst_list_materials (which lists names) and cst_create_material (which creates new materials) by focusing on retrieving properties.
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 description implies usage for retrieving properties of built-in materials but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cst_list_materials or cst_load_material. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.