Generate a 3D spline through a list of points defined by existing element names or [x,y,z] mm coordinates. Define curves in CATIA V5 GSD workbenches.
Create a 3D spline through a list of points. Each point is an existing element name or [x, y, z] coordinates in mm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Optional name for the spline | |
| closed | No | Close the spline into a loop | |
| points | Yes | Points the spline passes through, in order |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), so the description is not the main source of behavioral truth. It does add useful context that coordinate inputs create new point elements as a side effect, but it omits that repeated calls create duplicate splines and says nothing about which geoset receives the result.
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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the operation and followed immediately by the input format constraint. Nothing extraneous.
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 creation tool with no output schema, the input contract is fully covered and the side-effect of coordinate points is disclosed. However, the creation target (active geoset) and any success/return indication are absent, leaving a mutation tool slightly under-described.
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%, so the schema already documents points, name, and closed in detail. The description's point-format and mm-unit notes duplicate the nested schema descriptions rather than extending them, 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a 3D spline through a list of points'), and the '3D' qualifier implicitly separates it from the 2D sibling catia_sketch_spline. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as catia_gsd_line or catia_sketch_spline. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.