mastercam-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_post_processor

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reports metadata of the post processor currently assigned in the active Mastercam session, including name and configuration details for CAM workflows.

Instructions

Report the assigned post processor metadata

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`live`	No
`tool`	Yes
`error`	No
`receipt`	No
`documentRevision`	No
`operationFingerprint`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed11 schema fields changedv0.3.0Sep 24, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / properties / confirmed

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / dryRun

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / feed

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "number"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / name

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / operationId
```
Removed value: -{}
```

removedInput schema / properties / operationIds

Removed value: -{
-  "items": {},
-  "type": "array"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / outputPath
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

removedInput schema / properties / speed

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "number"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / toolId
```
Removed value: -{}
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {},
+    "documentRevision": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "code": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "remediation": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "retryable": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "code",
+        "message"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "live": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "operationFingerprint": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "receipt": {},
+    "tool": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "tool"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds only the 'assigned' scope qualifier and no further behavioral context, such as behavior when no post processor is assigned. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single seven-word sentence stating the action and target with no filler, redundancy, or secondary clauses. For a zero-parameter tool, this is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters, an output schema present to document return values, and annotations covering the read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is nearly complete for a tool of this simplicity. The only minor gap is that 'assigned' is not explicitly defined (assigned to the active part, the machine context, or the current job), though sibling-tool naming largely disambiguates this.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so a per-parameter explanation is unnecessary. Per the rubric, the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description has no parameter-information burden to satisfy.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Report') and a clearly defined resource ('assigned post processor metadata'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling metadata tools like get_version_report, get_fixture_info, or get_machine_context. The qualifier 'assigned' narrows the scope to the currently-configured post processor rather than a broad catalog query.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus any alternative, and no conditions or exclusions are given. The description does not name sibling tools as fallbacks (e.g., get_machine_context) for cases where the post processor assignment is unknown, leaving the decision entirely to the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server