Retrieve live status from a Mastercam session to verify operation completion and detect issues, ensuring your workflow proceeds only when ready.
Mastercam mastercam status
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, read-only behavior, or required context. The description discloses nothing beyond the word 'status', giving no indication of whether this tool mutates state, reads state, requires confirmation, or has side effects.
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. It repeats 'Mastercam' and adds no informative content, so every word fails to earn its place.
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?
With nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, this description is completely inadequate. An agent has no way to understand the tool's purpose, behavior, or parameters, making correct invocation impossible.
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 does not explain any of the nine parameters. Parameters like feed, speed, dryRun, operationIds, and outputPath are entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot know what values to provide or what they control.
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 mastercam status' is a near-tautology that restates the tool name without adding a verb or resource. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_toolpath_status or list_operations, so an agent cannot tell what operation this performs.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess whether this is for checking status, setting status, or something else entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.