Create a distance mate between two assembly references using faces or axes to set spacing and constrain relative position.
Create a distance mate between two references.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | No | ||
| b | No | ||
| axis_a | No | ||
| axis_b | No | ||
| face_a | No | ||
| face_b | No | ||
| distance | 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 bears the full disclosure burden. It does not say what a distance mate constrains, whether it requires a loaded assembly, whether the operation is reversible/undoable, or how the 'two references' are supplied among the six reference parameters.
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 front-loaded sentence with no padding, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency given the tool's complexity.
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 an 8-parameter modeling tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without the information needed to populate reference parameters or predict behavior.
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% across 8 parameters, and the description adds no mapping. It never explains the relationship between a/b, axis_a/axis_b, face_a/face_b, what 'distance' means or its units, or why only assembly_id is required.
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 distance mate'), so an agent knows the operation type. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as mate_coincident, mate_concentric, mate_angle, and mate_parallel, so it merely restates the name without routing logic.
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 use a distance mate versus the other mate types that appear in the sibling list. No prerequisites (e.g., an existing assembly) or alternative-selection criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.