Skip to main content
Glama
Praket7

mastercam-mcp

by Praket7
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

mastercam_capabilities

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover which capabilities your active Mastercam backend actually supports, avoiding unsupported commands.

Instructions

Report which capabilities the active backend genuinely supports

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refreshNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
dataNo
liveNo
toolYes
errorNo
receiptNo
documentRevisionNo
operationFingerprintNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed12 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirmed
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / dryRun
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / feed
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "number"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / name
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / operationId
      Removed value: -{}
    • removedInput schema / properties / operationIds
      Removed value: -{
-  "items": {},
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / outputPath
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / refresh
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / speed
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "number"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / toolId
      Removed value: -{}
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "adapterVersion": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "mastercamVersion": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "note": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "protocol": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "runtime": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "tools": {
+          "items": {},
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "adapterVersion",
+        "mastercamVersion",
+        "runtime",
+        "protocol",
+        "tools",
+        "note"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "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"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful hint that the report reflects genuine backend support, but it does not explain how that is determined or what the behavior of the optional refresh parameter is.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word earns its place, and the qualifier 'genuinely' carries meaningful intent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, the description is minimally viable for a simple tool. It is still missing parameter semantics and explicit sibling differentiation, so some contextual gaps remain.

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 schema has one optional boolean parameter, refresh, with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, so this is not a complete failure, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('which capabilities the active backend genuinely supports'), so the core purpose is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling discover_capabilities or get_compatibility_matrix, which could plausibly overlap.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'genuinely' implies it verifies actual backend support rather than declared support, but that is never made explicit and no sibling tools are referenced.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools