CST-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

cst_load_material_from_library_tool

Add a material from the CST material library to your project, optionally replacing an existing material or targeting a named material.

Instructions

Add a material to the project from the CST material library.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "library_path": "<library_path>"
    },
    "name": "cst_load_material_from_library_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`replace`	No
`library_path`	Yes
`material_name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about the significant 'replace' flag (defaulting to true), i.e. whether an existing material of the same name is overwritten, nor about required state, permissions, or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the destructive/overwrite behavior implied by replace=true and the required library_path are gaps the agent cannot fill from structured data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the three parameters. The required library_path format, the purpose of material_name (which is nullable with a null default), and the replace semantics are all left undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (add/load) and resource (material from the CST material library), so an agent knows the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like cst_create_material_tool or cst_assign_material_tool, leaving the agent to infer which of the three material-related tools applies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative material tools. The agent is never told whether this supplements or conflicts with creating a material or assigning one to a solid.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server