Search the active CATIA document for elements whose names match a wildcard pattern, then obtain reference tokens for every match.
Search the active document for elements whose name matches a pattern (shell-style wildcards, e.g. 'Pad.*' or 'Hole'). Returns reference tokens for every match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum matches. | |
| pattern | Yes | Name pattern with * and ? wildcards, e.g. 'Sketch.*'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns reference tokens for each match, which is not present in the annotations or schema. This gives the agent useful information about the result format without contradicting any annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every word earns its place: search, active document, pattern matching, and return value. No redundancy or filler.
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 read-only search tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides all necessary information: scope (active document), filter (name pattern), and return type (reference tokens). Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already supplies basic meaning. The description adds value with concrete wildcard examples ('Pad.*', '*Hole*') and clarifies that these are shell-style wildcards, going beyond the schema's generic 'Name pattern with * and ? wildcards.'
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('active document for elements'), and clearly defines the operation (name-pattern matching with wildcards). This differentiates it from siblings like catia_list_elements, catia_select_elements, and catia_list_features, which have different search/selection semantics.
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 clearly sets the context: search within the active document by name patternasi. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's specific purpose is obvious from the description alone, so the agent knows when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.