Retrieve detailed properties of the active CATIA document, including name, type, path, part bodies, and features, to inspect and verify current design data.
Get detailed info about the active CATIA document: name, type, path, part bodies, features, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that output covers document identity and structure, but says nothing about behavior when no document is open, nor about return format or size.
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 naming the subject before the field list. The trailing 'etc.' is slightly loose but costs little.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of indicating what comes back and does so by listing document name, type, path, part bodies and features. It stops short of noting error conditions (e.g. no active document), which is a minor gap for a no-arg read tool.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond what the schema (empty object) already conveys; the baseline for a no-param tool applies.
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 (get) and resource (active CATIA document) and enumerates the kinds of data returned (name, type, path, part bodies, features). It implicitly contrasts with catia_list_documents by scoping to the active document, but never names a sibling explicitly.
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 and no routing to alternatives such as catia_list_documents, catia_get_tree, catia_describe_model, or catia_get_parameters. The agent must infer from the name alone when this introspection call is the right one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.