Check whether a Mastercam toolpath operation is confirmed, complete, or still processing, providing clarity for next steps in the CAM workflow.
Mastercam get toolpath status
| 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 behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the word 'get' from the tool name and offers no information about side effects, read-only behavior, required permissions, or what the status response contains.
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 useful conciseness. The single phrase contains no operational detail and does not earn its place beyond restating the tool name.
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 a 9-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-line description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot know what parameters to supply, what values are expected, or what the returned 'status' looks like.
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% across 9 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. The agent cannot determine whether fields like feed, speed, outputPath, operationId, or operationIds are inputs, filters, or settings, nor how they relate to retrieving status.
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 toolpath status' is essentially a tautology of the tool name with a product prefix. It does not define what 'status' means, such as regeneration state, validity, or postability, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like mastercam_status or compare_toolpaths.
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 alternatives like get_operation, compare_toolpaths, or regenerate_toolpath. The description provides no conditions, prerequisites, or decision criteria, so the agent must guess at the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.