Create a parallel mate between two references in an assembly to constrain their orientation. Use it to align CAD parts along matching axes or faces.
Create a parallel 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 burden. It doesn't indicate whether the operation is destructive, whether it modifies the assembly, what happens if references are invalid, or whether it requires an existing assembly.
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 waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads the verb but provides almost no information to justify its brevity.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain parameters, behavior, or usage context.
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% and the description provides no parameter information at all. Eight parameters (a, b, value, axis_a, axis_b, face_a, face_b, assembly_id) are completely undocumented, leaving meanings ambiguous.
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 and resource ('Create a parallel mate between two references'), closely mirroring the name. It distinguishes itself from siblings like mate_coincident, mate_concentric, mate_distance, and mate_angle by naming the mate type, though it doesn't spell out what 'parallel' means beyond the term.
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, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing valid references), and no routing to the other mate_* siblings. An agent must infer the appropriate scenario on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.