Explains a Mastercam operation's purpose and details directly from its returned parameters when you supply an operation ID.
Explain an operation from its actual returned parameters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operationId | Yes |
| 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 a minor nuance that it works from 'actual returned parameters', implying it may depend on prior calls, but it does not disclose any other behavioral details like response format or 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and is appropriately sized for its limited 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical context: it does not clarify what kind of explanation is produced, nor does it specify when to choose this tool over the many operation-related siblings. The term 'actual returned parameters' is ambiguous without more context, leaving the agent under-informed.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it adds nothing about the operationId parameter beyond the obvious 'an operation'. It does not explain what 'actual returned parameters' means in relation to the parameter or how the ID is used to produce the explanation.
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 clear verb 'Explain' with a resource 'operation', and specifies a source ('from its actual returned parameters'), which distinguishes it from simple fetch tools like get_operation or get_operation_parameters. However, it does not define what 'explain' entails (e.g., natural-language reasoning, diagnostics), so it is not fully precise.
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 its many siblings such as get_operation, get_operation_parameters, or preview_operation_parameters. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.