Set a named parameter value in the active CATIA V5 part to update parametric design dimensions and geometry. Use it for batch parametric modifications and model updates.
Set the value of a named parameter in the active part. Useful for parametric design modifications.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full parameter name (e.g., 'Part1\\Pad.1\\FirstLimit\\Length') | |
| value | Yes | New value for the parameter |
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-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'active part' scope, but says nothing about failure modes, permission requirements, or whether the model rebuilds.
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, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence is generic and slightly filler, but it adds a small amount of context without bloating the definition.
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 two-parameter mutation whose safety profile is covered by annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not state what happens if the parameter name is invalid or missing, nor does it mention any side effects of changing a parameter.
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 both parameters are clearly documented with an example of the full parameter name. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 (set), resource (named parameter), and scope (active part), which is more precise than a tautology. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling catia_get_parameters, leaving sibling differentiation to the tool name alone.
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?
'Useful for parametric design modifications' gives an implied use case but no explicit when-to-use condition, no alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., active part must exist, parameter must already exist). Guidance is generic rather than actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.