List all bodies in the active CATIA V5 part, their feature counts, and the active InWorkObject to verify the working body before edits.
List all Bodies in the active Part, their feature counts, and which one is currently active (InWorkObject).
| 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 safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the return surface (bodies, feature counts, which body is the InWorkObject) and the implicit scoping to the active Part, though it omits behavior when no Part is open.
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 with no filler: verb first, then scope, then the payload returned. Every clause earns its place.
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 return-value burden and does so adequately by enumerating the reported fields. The only small gap is not mentioning behavior when no active Part exists, which is minor for a zero-param 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-argument tool is 4. No parameter syntax or defaults are needed.
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?
Specific verb (List) + resource (Bodies) + scope (in the active Part) and it names what is returned (feature counts, active/InWorkObject marker). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling readers like catia_list_features, catia_list_edges, and catia_list_faces.
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: it is clearly the inspection call for bodies, after which catia_activate_body or catia_rename_body would follow. It never states when not to use it or that catia_get_tree provides overlapping tree information, so no explicit alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.