Retrieve operations from an active Mastercam session. Filter by name, speed, feed, tool, or operation ID, and optionally validate with dry-run or confirmation before output.
Mastercam list operations
| 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 behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether it returns all operations, filters by active part, requires a selected part, or has side effects. No behavioral detail beyond the verb is given.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is no front-loaded useful content beyond the tool name itself, so the brevity provides no value.
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?
For a tool with 9 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely inadequate. It gives an agent almost no basis for selecting, invoking, or interpreting the results of this tool.
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 description mentions none of them. The agent receives no guidance on what feed, speed, dryRun, toolId, confirmed, outputPath, operationId, or operationIds mean semantically or how they affect the listing.
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 list operations' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'list_operations'. It communicates the basic verb and resource but adds no distinguishing detail, so it does not help an agent differentiate this from sibling tools like get_operation or list_machine_groups.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_operation, get_operation_parameters, or list_machine_groups. No context is provided about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.