Insert existing CATPart or CATProduct files into the active CATIA assembly. Specify absolute file paths and an optional parent instance to control placement.
Insert one or more existing CATPart or CATProduct files into the active assembly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | Yes | Absolute paths of the files to insert. | |
| parent | No | Instance name of the sub-product to insert into. Defaults to the root. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false), so the description does not need to restate that. It adds context that only existing CATPart/CATProduct files are inserted and that the target is the active assembly, but it does not disclose potential side effects like assembly tree modification, broken references, or requirements about the parent instance. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 entire description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It contains no filler and every word earns its place. The one-sentence format is ideal for this simple tool.
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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus annotations are largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main gap is that it does not explicitly state that the active document must be an assembly or explain failure behavior for invalid paths/parents, but these are edge conditions rather than core invocation requirements.
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 input schema already fully describes both parameters, but the description adds the file-type constraint (CATPart/CATProduct), which meaningfully narrows what values 'paths' may contain. It also confirms that one or more files can be inserted at once. This goes slightly beyond the schema without repeating it.
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?
States a clear verb-resource pair: insert existing CATPart or CATProduct files into the active assembly. The word 'existing' differentiates this from sibling creation tools like catia_add_new_part and catia_add_new_product. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does or where it operates.
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 implies the tool is for adding pre-existing components to an assembly, which gives basic usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over adding new parts/products, nor mention prerequisites like the active document needing to be an open assembly. There is no guidance on exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.