Simulate machining operations in a local Mastercam session to validate toolpaths before physical machining. Configure feed, speed, tool, and operations to review results.
Mastercam run simulation
| 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 behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about side effects, prerequisites, whether the simulation modifies state, whether confirmation is needed, or what happens after execution.
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 short but under-specified. It is not concise in a useful way because it communicates no operational information and does not 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?
This is a complex 9-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no meaningful description. The definition is completely inadequate for an agent to select or invoke this tool correctly.
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 zero meaning to any of the 9 parameters such as feed, speed, dryRun, confirmed, or outputPath. An agent has no way to infer what these parameters do or how to set them.
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 run simulation' simply restates the tool name and adds no concrete verb-resource behavior. It does not explain what running a simulation does, what it acts on, or how it differs from siblings like detect_collisions or post_program.
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 this tool versus any of the many sibling tools, nor any exclusion criteria or context. This is merely an absence of guidance rather than misleading guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.