Fetch full details for a specific 3D printing material by its numeric ID, enabling AI agents to verify material properties, pricing, and availability during quoting or order management.
Retrieve full details for a specific 3D printing material by its numeric ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique numeric ID of the material |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Retrieve' implies a safe read, and 'full details' hints at the response scope, but it says nothing about error behavior for unknown IDs, required permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but thin for a no-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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero padding. Nothing to trim.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the basics but does not explain what 'full details' includes or how an agent should obtain a valid ID. A brief pointer to list_materials would close the gap.
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 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented (unique numeric ID, exclusiveMinimum 0). The description only echoes 'numeric ID', adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the 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?
States a specific verb ('Retrieve'), resource ('3D printing material'), and lookup key ('numeric ID'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_materials and get_* variants. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent to list_materials for discovering IDs, 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?
Usage is implied: fetch one material when you have its ID. There is no explicit when-to-use vs list_materials, no note that an ID must be obtained first, and no exclusions. Minimum viable for a simple lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.