Lists available procedural PBR material approximations for cabinet design. Use it to see which material options exist before assigning materials to parametric furniture models.
Read available procedural PBR approximations, not scanned materials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must imply behavior — 'Read' does signal a non-mutating operation, and the procedural-vs-scanned distinction sets expectations about content. It does not state whether the result is empty when nothing is available, whether it's cached/static, or any permission requirement, leaving gaps for a zero-annotation tool.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier (procedural, not scanned) is placed where it will be read. It is arguably too compressed — one extra clause on what 'available' means would cost little.
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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description only needs to establish intent and content scope, which it does. Return structure is covered by the output schema, so no explanation of return values is required.
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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-related claims that could conflict with the empty schema.
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 read verb against a specific resource ('Read available ... materials') and narrows scope with 'procedural PBR approximations, not scanned materials.' The only weakness is that 'Read' doesn't explicitly say it returns a list/catalog of available materials rather than material data itself.
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 clause 'not scanned materials' functions as an implicit when-not, steering an agent away from expecting scanned texture assets. There is no positive guidance on when to call this versus other discovery steps, and the sibling tools are unrelated, so no alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.