mastercam-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_tools

Read-onlyIdempotent

List tools referenced by active Mastercam operations to identify in-use tooling. Use the optional limit to control result count.

Instructions

List tools referenced by active operations; does not claim complete library coverage

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No

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.

Changed12 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"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "default": 200,
+  "maximum": 500,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description contributes beyond them by clarifying the tool's scope boundary: it only reports tools tied to active operations and intentionally does not claim full coverage. 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 one short sentence that front-loads the main action and appends a meaningful caveat. Every clause adds information: listing scope, active-operations filter, and library coverage boundary.

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?

For a simple, optional-limit, read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description captures the essential behavior and its key limitation. Return format is covered by the output schema, and no required parameters or nested objects are missing. It does not enumerate usage alternatives or limit semantics, which keeps it just below a 5.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has a single optional limit parameter with default/min/max, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions limit or what it controls. The parameter name and constraints hint at its meaning, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 names a precise verb and resource: lists 'tools referenced by active operations.' The added clause 'does not claim complete library coverage' narrows scope and differentiates it from full-library listing. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from sibling discovery tools without reading the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives a contextual cue by stating the tool is limited to tools referenced by active operations and explicitly says it is not a complete library listing. However, it never names an alternative for full library coverage or states when not to use it, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server