Resolve a thread designation to its exact size using a default or explicit standard. Get thread dimensions from catalog designations for CAD operations.
Resolve a thread size by its designation/title within the default standard for a thread type (or an explicit standard).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| standard | No | ||
| designation | Yes | ||
| thread_type | No | ||
| database_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool resolves but does not explain whether it is read-only, what happens on no match, how the default standard is determined, or what the return shape looks like.
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 a single focused sentence with no redundancy. The core operation and key parameters are front-loaded, though the sentence packs several clauses without structural aids.
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?
This is a domain-specific catalog lookup with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain what the resolved output is, how defaults operate, or the role of database_path, leaving an agent under-equipped for correct invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for designation, standard, and thread_type, but database_path is completely unexplained, and the required designation parameter lacks format or example context.
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 ('Resolve') with a clear resource: a thread size from its designation/title within a standard. It distinguishes itself from list-style siblings by indicating a lookup action, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 gives some context about default versus explicit standards but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_thread_catalog_standards or list_thread_catalog_entries. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.