Highlight specific CATIA geometry using reference tokens, visually marking elements to modify for the workstation user. Optionally clear existing selection.
Highlight elements in the CATIA window. Purely visual - useful to show a person at the workstation which geometry you are about to modify.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokens | Yes | Reference tokens to highlight together. | |
| replace | No | Clear the existing selection first. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by noting the action is 'purely visual' and tied to upcoming modifications. It does not contradict the annotations: readOnlyHint=false is consistent with selection being a UI state change. It could further explain side effects on the current selection, but for a highlight tool this is adequate.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and key limitation ('purely visual') are front-loaded, making the tool easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that selection state is changed or that replace affects existing selection, but those details are already in the schema.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'tokens' and 'replace'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema fully covers the parameters.
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 action ('Highlight elements in the CATIA window') and gives a clear use case. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like catia_show_element, but 'purely visual' helps separate it from geometry-modifying or visibility-toggle tools.
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?
It provides clear context: this is for visually showing a person at the workstation which geometry is about to be modified. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended scenario is clear enough for a simple selection tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.