Capture a Mastercam view to an image file. Provide operation IDs, tool parameters, and output path to produce a visual snapshot for documentation or verification.
Mastercam capture view
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| speed | No | ||
| dryRun | No | ||
| toolId | No | ||
| confirmed | No | ||
| outputPath | No | ||
| operationId | No | ||
| operationIds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it discloses nothing. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, whether it writes files, whether it modifies the Mastercam session, or whether it requires confirmation or produces side effects.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. No information is front-loaded because there is essentially no information at all; every sentence or phrase should earn its place, and this one fails to deliver meaningful content.
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 tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, what the parameters mean, what the return value is, or how it relates to the surrounding Mastercam workflow.
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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the nine parameters such as feed, speed, outputPath, operationIds, or confirmed. An agent cannot infer the meaning or purpose of these fields from the text.
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 'Mastercam capture view' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not specify what action is performed, what resource is affected, or what output is produced. It provides no differentiation from the many sibling tools and leaves the agent guessing whether this captures an image, a view state, or something else.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent has no basis for selecting this tool over any sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.