List Mastercam tools from a live session, applying filters such as name, feed, speed, tool ID, or operation. Supports dry-run preview and file output for easier review.
Mastercam list tools
| 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. It only gives the verb 'list', implying a read operation, but provides no detail on side effects, scope, output behavior, or whether this calls into Mastercam state. This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's 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 extremely short, which avoids verbosity, but this is under-specification rather than efficient communication. It fails to earn its place by clarifying the tool's real purpose or parameters.
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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. An agent cannot determine valid input combinations, return format, or edge cases from this definition.
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% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. There are 9 parameters, including ambiguous ones like toolId, operationIds, and confirmed, but the description provides no hints about which parameters are needed 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 tools' nearly restates the tool name and adds only the context 'Mastercam'. It lacks any detail about what is being listed, what a 'tool' refers to in this context, or how it differs from sibling tools like list_operations 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. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or why an agent should pick list_tools over list_operations or other sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.