Update Mastercam operation tool assignments by specifying tool ID, feed, speed, and operation IDs. Control changes with dry-run and confirmation options for safe CAM workflow modifications.
Mastercam change tool
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'change tool' with zero context about what happens to the tool, whether changes are destructive, require confirmation, or persist. The dryRun and confirmed parameters hint at side effects, yet the description does not explain them.
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 very short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It conveys no actionable content beyond the name, so brevity is not an asset here.
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 radically incomplete. An agent has no way to know what the tool does, how to set parameters, what a dryRun means, or what results to expect.
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 adds no meaning to any of the nine parameters. Parameter names like feed, speed, toolId, operationId, and dryRun carry some self-evident meaning, but the description provides no linkage between these parameters and the change operation.
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 change tool' merely restates the tool name and adds the product context, so it is essentially tautological. It does not specify what changing a tool entails—whether it replaces the active tool, edits tool parameters, or affects operations—and it offers no differentiation from siblings like set_feed_speed or create_operation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to invoke change_tool versus alternatives such as set_feed_speed, update_stock, or create_operation. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.