Calculate machining cycle time for selected operations by providing feed, speed, and tool details. Get accurate time estimates to optimize production planning and validate toolpaths before running jobs.
Mastercam estimate cycle time
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'estimate cycle time' and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it writes output, whether it requires a confirmed state, or what side effects may occur. Given parameters like confirmed, dryRun, and outputPath, this lack of behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.
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 it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It is a fragment that provides minimal value beyond the tool name and does not structure useful information for the agent.
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?
With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse to be contextually complete. It fails to explain what inputs mean, what the tool returns, how to specify operations, or how to interpret the results.
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 no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description provides no explanation for feed, speed, dryRun, toolId, confirmed, outputPath, operationId, or operationIds, so the agent has no semantic grounding for any parameter.
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 estimate cycle time' identifies the action (estimate) and the resource (cycle time), making the basic purpose clear. However, it is a fragment rather than a full sentence, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like run_simulation or get_toolpath_status.
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 versus alternatives such as run_simulation, compare_toolpaths, or regenerate_toolpath. The description gives no context about what scenarios call for estimating cycle time or when another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.