Retrieves the post processor for specified Mastercam operations, using optional feed, speed, dry-run, and output path settings to match your machining needs.
Mastercam get post processor
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It provides none: no mention of side effects, return values, required state, configuration requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. The word 'get' implies retrieval, but nothing about actual behavior is disclosed.
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 not effectively concise because it adds no information beyond the tool name. It is under-specified rather than tightly written, and the few words do not earn their place.
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 a large set of sibling tools, this description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's role, expected inputs, output, or relationship to related operations, making correct invocation nearly impossible for an AI agent.
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 schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. Parameters like feed, speed, dryRun, operationIds, and outputPath are left entirely undefined, so an agent cannot determine what values to supply or why they matter.
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 post processor' essentially restates the tool name and adds no meaningful detail about what the tool does, what a post processor is in this context, or what the result represents. It uses the same verb and resource as the name, making it a tautology rather than a clarifying purpose statement.
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 about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as post_program, get_toolpath_status, or list_operations. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent without any decision support for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.