Check which CAD processing steps are supported and confirm adapter readiness for FreeCAD or Autodesk Fusion before validating YAML design-intent files or generating native parts.
Report supported FCOH steps and actual CAD adapter readiness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Report' indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, and 'actual ... readiness' suggests a live check rather than a static config lookup. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior, prerequisites, or what happens if the CAD adapter is unavailable.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. Key terms are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the tool's purpose.
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 zero-parameter, read-only capability query, the description covers the essentials: what is reported and that it reflects actual readiness. Without an output schema, it could offer a hint about the response shape, but this is not a serious gap for such a simple tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description needs to add no parameter meaning because there is nothing to configure or pass in.
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 ('Report') and a precise resource ('supported FCOH steps and actual CAD adapter readiness'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fcoh_validate and fcoh_build, which imply actions, even though it doesn't name them explicitly.
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 purpose implies this tool should be used when an agent needs to know which FCOH steps are supported or whether the CAD adapter is ready, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.