Checks Mastercam toolpaths for collisions before machining, using operation IDs and tool data to reveal interference risks so you can correct issues early.
Mastercam detect collisions
| 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 and the description discloses no behavioral traits. It is unclear whether this is a read-only analysis, whether it runs a simulation or generates geometry, or whether it modifies the Mastercam document state. The single noun phrase provides no safety or side-effect information.
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, not effective conciseness. It earns no information because it only restates the tool name, and the lack of front-loaded details such as intended use or parameters makes the brevity a liability.
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 9 unannotated parameters, no output schema, and 26 sibling tools, the description provides none of the necessary context. It does not specify what inputs are used, what results are returned, how collisions are evaluated, or how this tool differs from adjacent operations, making it impossible for an agent to call it correctly.
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 input schema has 9 parameters with zero documentation, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description offers no hints about the meaning of feed, speed, toolId, operationIds, outputPath, or the other fields, so the agent has no way to infer what parameters control the collision detection behavior.
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 detect collisions' merely prefixes the tool name with 'Mastercam' and restates the verb phrase from the name. It does not specify what action is performed, what inputs are required, or what output is produced, making it a tautology that fails to distinguish the tool from any other Mastercam 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 given on when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as run_simulation, compare_toolpaths, or get_toolpath_status. The description does not mention conditions, alternatives, or the workflow context in which collision detection is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.