Set CATIA V5 3D view orientation to standard views (front, top, isometric, sides) and reframe the model for consistent viewpoints.
Set the 3D view orientation (Z up, as CATIA's standard views) and reframe. front = looking along +Y; isometric = from (+X+Y+Z) corner; isometric_back/left/right = the three other upper corners.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | Yes | View orientation |
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 operation is non-destructive and idempotent, so the description does not need to repeat safety facts. It adds useful behavioral context by noting that the tool also reframes the view and by explaining several orientation mappings, though it omits any mention of whether view state is saved.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and orientation details appended efficiently. Every clause adds useful information without redundancy.
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 single-enum view tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains the main view orientations and the reframe behavior, though it could briefly cover the remaining enum values or clarify the effect on the saved view state.
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 coverage is 100% and the enum is self-contained, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the orientation meaning of front, isometric, and the three isometric variants, though it leaves top/bottom/left/right to standard conventions.
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 and resource: setting the 3D view orientation and reframing. It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from nearby view-related tools such as catia_fit_all.
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 implied by the action itself, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like catia_fit_all or catia_clean_display. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.