Lists all open CATIA V5 documents with their types and file paths, helping you quickly identify active parts, assemblies, and drawings.
List all open documents in CATIA V5 with their types and paths.
| 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include document types and paths, which is useful context, but it says nothing about ordering, environment requirements (must CATIA be connected?), or behavior when no documents are 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 waste; the resource is named first and the returned content follows immediately.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description should carry the burden of describing return values, and it does so at a basic level (types and paths). Minor gaps remain around ordering and empty-state behavior, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.
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 the schema places no semantic burden on the description. Baseline 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify or omit.
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 ('List all open documents in CATIA V5') plus what is returned (types and paths). This clearly separates it from siblings like catia_list_features, catia_list_bodies, or catia_close_all, though it does not name any 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?
The scope 'open documents' implies when the tool is useful (enumerating what is currently loaded before open/close/save operations), but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance. Adequate but leaves routing entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.