Retrieve a summary of current Mastercam geometry to confirm part features before creating toolpaths.
Mastercam get geometry summary
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it discloses nothing beyond the word 'get.' It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what inputs affect the result, what output format to expect, or whether any session state changes.
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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. No sentence earns its place because there is no substantive content; the only text merely repeats the tool name.
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?
Given 9 undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no description of the geometry source or summary contents, the definition is far from complete. An agent has essentially no basis for correctly invoking this tool or interpreting its result.
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 0% description coverage, and the tool description mentions none of them. The presence of unrelated-looking parameters such as feed, speed, dryRun, confirmed, outputPath, and operationIds is not explained, making it impossible to know their relevance to geometry summarization.
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 get geometry summary' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name and provides no concrete information about what geometry is being summarized or what the summary contains. It functions as a tautology rather than an explanation, and it does not distinguish the tool from similar siblings like get_selection or get_stock.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 25 sibling tools. There is no stated context, prerequisite, or alternative, leaving the agent to guess whether geometry summary is intended for selected geometry, active part geometry, or stock geometry.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.