Sets the active geometrical set in CATIA V5 so all newly created GSD elements go there. Pass the exact existing set name to control where geometry is added.
Select which Geometrical Set receives subsequently created GSD elements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of an existing geometrical set |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and the description earns credit by disclosing the key non-obvious behavior: this is a stateful pointer change whose effect lands on future operations rather than on existing geometry. It does not say what happens if the named set does not exist, nor whether the setting is document- or session-scoped.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately qualified by the consequence. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed.
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 one-parameter state-setting tool with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description covers the essential mental model. Minor gaps remain around scope (document vs session) and failure behavior for a non-existent set name.
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% and the single parameter is already documented as "Name of an existing geometrical set." The description adds no syntax, casing, or lookup detail beyond the schema, so the 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?
The description states a specific verb ("Select") and resource ("Geometrical Set") and adds the important scope qualifier that the choice affects "subsequently created GSD elements." It is clearly distinct from catia_gsd_create_geoset, though it never names or contrasts with that 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?
Usage is only implied through "subsequently created GSD elements" — an agent can infer this should be called before GSD element creation, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_geoset or activate_body.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.