Retrieve parameters for a Mastercam operation, including feed, speed, tool ID, and output path, to review or validate machining settings before execution.
Mastercam get operation parameters
| 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. It implies a read-only 'get' operation, but does not state whether the operation is safe, whether it requires an existing operation, what the response contains, or how the many input fields are interpreted.
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. It contains no structured explanation and provides almost no actionable content 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?
This is a 9-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no usage context. The description is far too minimal to support correct invocation or interpretation of results, especially in the presence of many similar sibling tools.
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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 9 parameters. An agent cannot tell whether fields like feed, speed, name, outputPath, or confirmed are filters, output selections, or configuration options.
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 operation parameters' merely restates the tool name and adds no detail beyond it. It does not specify what parameters are returned, for which operation, or how it differs from siblings like get_operation or list_operations.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_operation, list_operations, or set_feed_speed. The description gives no context for selecting this tool correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.