Retrieve machine groups from a live Mastercam session to inspect available configurations for CAD/CAM workflows.
List machine groups (alias of list_machine_groups)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the alias relationship, which is useful identity context, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, auth requirements, or response characteristics; there is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 compact: a front-loaded imperative verb and resource, followed by a single clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place and no filler is present.
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 zero-parameter, read-only alias tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. The alias reference to list_machine_groups provides all the contextual linkage an agent needs to select and call this tool 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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter meanings for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool applies here.
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 states the exact action and resource ('List machine groups') and further clarifies the tool's identity by naming it as an alias of list_machine_groups. This makes its purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from the otherwise similar sibling without requiring schema inspection.
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 provides clear context by explicitly tying the tool to list_machine_groups as an alias, so an agent knows it can be used in exactly the same situations. It does not articulate explicit when-not conditions, but for a zero-parameter alias, the context is sufficiently clear and no exclusions are necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.