Creates a concentric mate between two references, aligning axes or faces to constrain assembly components.
Create a concentric mate between two references.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | No | ||
| b | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| axis_a | No | ||
| axis_b | No | ||
| face_a | No | ||
| face_b | No | ||
| assembly_id | Yes |
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 full behavioral burden. 'Create a concentric mate' implies a mutation, but the description does not disclose whether this modifies an assembly, what permissions are required, what happens to existing mates, or what the result 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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity comes at the cost of under-specification for a complex 8-parameter mutation tool.
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?
Given 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It provides only the core action and omits usage, parameter mapping, and behavioral context needed to invoke the tool correctly.
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 8 parameters, and the description does not explain any of them. 'Between two references' hints at two inputs, but the schema offers multiple reference-like fields (a, b, axis_a, axis_b, face_a, face_b) plus assembly_id, with no mapping or meaning provided.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a concentric mate between two references.' It distinguishes the operation from generic creation siblings, but does not differentiate from the close sibling 'add_constraint_concentric' or explain what a 'reference' is in this context.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when this mate should be used over 'add_constraint_concentric' or other mate types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.