Make elements visible in 3D view to resolve empty results from face/edge listing tools by revealing hidden geometry.
Make an element visible in the 3D view. Also the fix when catia_list_faces or catia_list_edges returns nothing: CATIA's search skips hidden geometry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | Reference token of the element to show. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the practical note about search skipping hidden geometry, which is useful context. However, for a mutation-like tool (showing an element), the description does not disclose potential side effects or requirements like token validity or document state. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not fully elaborate beyond the basic action.
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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main action. The second sentence adds a specific usage tip that is relevant but not critical. No unnecessary information is present.
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?
Given the tool is relatively simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary action and a key usage scenario. However, it does not mention any prerequisites or potential errors, and the connection to list commands is slightly cryptic. Overall, it is adequate but not exhaustive.
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%, and the token parameter is described as a reference token. The description does not add further detail about the token format or how to obtain it, but since the schema already provides the meaning, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra semantic guidance is provided.
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 clear purpose: making an element visible in the 3D view, with a specific verb and resource. It also hints at a side effect (fixing list commands). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from its sibling catia_hide_element, though the opposite action is implied.
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 provides a clear context for when to use it: when catia_list_faces or catia_list_edges return nothing, implying hidden geometry. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.