Get precise 3D coordinates for a point, vertex, or circle center by referencing its token in CATIA V5.
Read the 3D coordinates of a point, vertex or the centre of a circle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| element | Yes | Reference token, e.g. 'vertex#4' or 'name:Point.1'. |
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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about which element types are valid (point, vertex, circle centre), which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose output format, coordinate system, or potential failure modes. The added context is useful but not extensive.
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 a single sentence, concise and directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and includes no filler. All content is necessary to convey the tool's function.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only, no output schema). The description covers what it reads and the parameter is defined in the schema, but the output format (e.g., coordinate tuple, units) is not specified. Without an output schema, the description should optionally hint at the return structure. The current description leaves this gap, making it inadequate for an agent that needs to parse the result.
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?
Despite 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'element', the tool description does not add further meaning about that parameter. It only reiterates the element types in general terms. Since the schema already explains the reference token format with examples, the description adds no substantial value for parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the action (read) and the resource (3D coordinates) with specific target types (point, vertex, circle centre). It distinguishes itself from measurement siblings like catia_measure_distance and catia_measure_angle by focusing on coordinate extraction. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies usage for coordinate retrieval, but does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for distances or angles) or point to sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the purpose, not clearly demarcated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.