Preview V-belt groove geometry by specifying designation and datum diameter, with optional custom profile overrides, to verify cut dimensions before CAD modeling.
Preview functional V-groove cut geometry without hubs, bores, or COM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool is a non-destructive preview and specifies exclusions, but it does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., active document), or the nature of the returned preview. Thus, beyond the word 'Preview' and the exclusion list, behavioral transparency is minimal.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and scope without filler. Every word contributes to communicating the core purpose, making it appropriately concise.
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 tool with a deeply nested request schema, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only one sentence. It ignores required inputs like designation and datum_diameter, does not explain the meaning of 'functional' in this context, and provides no information about the preview result/format. The exclusions add some context, but the definition is far from complete for reliable invocation.
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 never mentions the single 'request' parameter or its required fields. The exclusion of hubs/bores/COM provides a small clue about what parameters are absent, but the description does not explain how to populate the request object beyond what the schema's field titles already show.
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 uses the specific verb 'Preview' and names the resource 'functional V-groove cut geometry', and further qualifies the scope with 'without hubs, bores, or COM.' This clearly distinguishes it from a full pulley preview, though the description alone does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling preview_poly_v_groove; the tool name carries that distinction.
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 phrase 'without hubs, bores, or COM' implies the tool is for a groove-only preview, suggesting the agent should use it when full pulley features are not needed. However, there is no explicit 'use X instead' or criteria for choosing among the many sibling preview tools (preview_timing_belt_pulley, preview_flat_belt_pulley, preview_poly_v_groove), leaving usage guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.