Generate a CNC program from Mastercam operations by selecting operation IDs, tool parameters, feed, speed, and output path. Use dry run and confirmation to validate before writing.
Mastercam post program
| 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 full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits, but it says nothing about side effects, output file creation, permissions, reversibility, or error behavior. For what is likely a write/output operation, this is a critical omission.
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 text is very short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified rather than concise. A 9-parameter tool needs far more structured guidance than a four-word phrase.
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?
The tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation. The description is not sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does, what inputs to supply, what outputs to expect, or what risks are involved.
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 several parameters such as toolId, operationId, and operationIds have empty schemas. The description names no parameters and provides no hints about which parameters are required, how operationId relates to operationIds, or what dryRun and confirmed 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 post program' is a noun-phrase restatement of the tool name and contains no verb or action. It does not specify whether the tool generates, modifies, uploads, or simulates a program, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings like get_post_processor or run_simulation.
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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no context about prerequisites, target scenarios, or exclusions, though the text is not actively misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.