Create a 3D point at specified X, Y, Z coordinates in millimeters inside CATIA V5, optionally naming it for later geometry references.
Create a 3D point at (x, y, z). Coordinates in mm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | X coordinate (mm) | |
| y | Yes | Y coordinate (mm) | |
| z | Yes | Z coordinate (mm) | |
| name | No | Optional name for the point |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds only the mm unit, which is already in the schema, and says nothing about the required active geoset context or that repeated calls create duplicate points rather than updating one.
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?
Two short sentences, action front-loaded, zero filler. Nothing here is padding given the tool's simplicity.
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 a simple 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits the GSD-context prerequisite and what is returned/created, and does not distinguish the tool from its sketch-point sibling. These gaps are modest but real.
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 100%, with x/y/z and name individually documented, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's '(x, y, z)' restates the schema ordering without adding format or range meaning; baseline 3 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 ('Create') and resource ('3D point') plus the coordinate convention, so the core action is unambiguous. However it gives no differentiation from the sibling catia_sketch_point, which an agent could easily confuse with this GSD point constructor.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., an active GSD geoset), and no mention of when to prefer this over catia_sketch_point or catia_gsd_line. The agent must infer all routing from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.