Set the work offset for chosen Mastercam operations to define part zero. Accepts operation IDs, feed, speed, and tool parameters, with dry-run and confirmation for controlled updates.
Mastercam set work offset
| 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 does not mention whether the operation mutates the part file, requires confirmation, performs a dry run, or affects specific operations. The schema hints at side-effecting parameters (confirmed, dryRun, outputPath), but the description says nothing about them.
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 terse, consisting of only a fragment. While it wastes no words, it is under-specified to the point of omitting essential information and fails to structure any guidance for the agent.
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 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine required inputs, expected behavior, or return values, making the tool effectively uncallable without external knowledge.
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 9 parameters. Properties like feed, speed, toolId, operationId, and confirmed are not tied to the concept of setting a work offset, leaving an agent with no semantic understanding of how to populate 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 states a specific verb ('set') and resource ('work offset'), which is enough to identify the core operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_feed_speed and change_tool, which target different resources. However, it lacks any detail on what aspect of the work offset is being set or how it relates to the provided parameters.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name, which is insufficient given many sibling tools that operate on similar resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.