Retrieve stock definition from the active Mastercam session to verify stock size, shape, and setup. Use this read-only action to query stock data for CAM operations without altering the part.
Mastercam get stock
| 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, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only repeats the tool name. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects may occur, what the response contains, or any error or state-related behavior.
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 has no structural elements such as scoping, caveats, or examples, and it fails to earn its place by adding any useful information.
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 the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a complete description is especially important. This definition provides almost no usable context and is grossly inadequate for an agent to select or invoke the 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?
There are 9 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no meaning for any of them. Fields like feed, speed, dryRun, operationIds, and outputPath are entirely unexplained, leaving an agent unable to determine their roles.
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 stock' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds no clarifying detail about what 'stock' means or what the tool returns. It does not distinguish get_stock from siblings like update_stock or get_geometry_summary.
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. The description gives no context on prerequisites, selection criteria, or cases where another sibling tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.