Browse available Mastercam capabilities grouped by workflow stage to identify which operations apply to your current task.
Show available capabilities grouped by workflow stage
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| live | No | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| receipt | No | ||
| documentRevision | No | ||
| operationFingerprint | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating the output is grouped by workflow stage, which is not present in the annotations or schema.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler: 'Show available capabilities grouped by workflow stage.' It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only discovery tool, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
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?
The core behavior is stated and the output schema covers return values, but the description leaves the optional category parameter undocumented and does not clarify when to choose this tool over sibling capability/help tools. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for agents that need to filter or disambiguate.
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 schema contains one optional parameter, category, with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter, how it filters results, or how it relates to workflow-stage grouping, leaving the agent without enough information to use the filter correctly.
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 uses a concrete verb-plus-resource statement, 'Show available capabilities grouped by workflow stage', with an explicit organizing principle. It is distinguishable from sibling capability tools like mastercam_capabilities by the workflow-stage grouping, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.
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?
The description implies a usage context through 'grouped by workflow stage', suggesting stage-oriented capability discovery, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. Given the large sibling set, this leaves overlap with tools like mastercam_capabilities or list_tool_categories unresolved.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.