Read Materials.json to extract one summary row per properties entry—model part, properties ID, constitutive law, variables—plus the raw document.
Read a Materials.json: one summary row per properties entry (model_part_name, properties_id, constitutive law, variable names) plus the raw document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| materials_file | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content (one summary row per properties entry plus the raw document), which tells the agent the call is a non-mutating inspection and that output may be large because the raw document is included. It says nothing about permission requirements, missing-file/error behavior, or any size/pagination handling, so the disclosure is partial.
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?
One dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the return-shape detail. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained (though the description helpfully does so anyway). For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; the remaining gap is the unspecified parameter format and how a missing or malformed file is reported.
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% for the single parameter 'materials_file', so the schema offers no semantics. The description only implies it is a Materials.json file, but does not specify whether the parameter is a full path, a bare filename, or resolved relative to the project, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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?
Names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a Materials.json') and even enumerates the columns returned per properties entry, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name a sibling or the boundary against materials_check/materials_set_property, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling materials tools (materials_set_property, materials_remove_property, materials_check, create_materials). Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.