Update and recompute existing machining operations after changing cutting parameters, tool selection, or output settings to keep toolpaths accurate.
Mastercam regenerate toolpath
| 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it is completely silent. It does not state whether the tool modifies the document, requires confirmation, supports a dry run, or what side effects may occur, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names.
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 short sentence, but this is underspecification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks structure and omits essential information that should be front-loaded, such as what the tool does, when to use it, and what parameters affect.
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 nine parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and a vague one-line description, an agent has virtually no basis to call this tool correctly or interpret its behavior. The description is grossly inadequate.
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 information whatsoever. The nine properties (feed, speed, dryRun, confirmed, etc.) are entirely unexplained, so the agent cannot determine their meaning, relationships, or expected values.
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 regenerate toolpath' merely restates the tool name in nearly identical words and adds only the product name. It gives no detail on what regenerating entails and fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like get_toolpath_status 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?
There is no guidance on when to use regenerate_toolpath versus any of the sibling tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or alternative tools such as set_feed_speed, post_program, or run_simulation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.