Create a structured plan to inspect, preview, approve, apply, and verify changes in a live Mastercam session, enabling controlled CAD/CAM workflows.
Create a safe inspect, preview, approve, apply, verify plan
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| live | No | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| receipt | No | ||
| documentRevision | No | ||
| operationFingerprint | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to re-cover safety. It adds the phase sequence (inspect, preview, approve, apply, verify), giving some useful behavioral context, though it does not clarify whether the plan is ephemeral, what it is returned as, or whether 'apply' can ever trigger changes.
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 a single sentence with no filler and the key action is front-loaded. It loses a point because the compressed phrase 'safe inspect, preview, approve, apply, verify plan' is cryptic and could be read several ways.
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?
Zero parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema reduce the burden on the description, but the description still leaves the core concept underspecified: what exactly the plan contains, when it should be invoked, and how it maps to the sibling preview/apply/verify tools. It is adequate but not complete.
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 tool accepts no parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies here.
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 names a verb and resource ('Create a ... plan') and lists phases (inspect, preview, approve, apply, verify), but the phrasing is grammatically awkward and does not specify what kind of plan this is or how it relates to Mastercam. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like preview_operation_parameters or plan_od_rough_finish.
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?
The description implies the tool is used to create a safe step-by-step plan covering inspect, preview, approve, apply, and verify. However, it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.