Add a spline through control points in a CATIA sketch. Provide points as [[x1,y1],[x2,y2],...] in millimeters and optionally set the target sketch.
Add a spline through a list of control points.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| points | Yes | Control points as [[x1,y1],[x2,y2],...], mm. | |
| sketch | No | Target sketch. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide minimal detail (all flags false), so the description carries the burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, preconditions (like needing an active sketch), or potential failures. No additional behavioral context is offered beyond the obvious add operation.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and the core input efficiently, and the key information is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context about the sketch environment and does not clarify how this differs from the GSD spline tool, which could matter given the many siblings. It is adequate but not richly informative.
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%, with both parameters documented (points format and sketch target). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond restating that a spline goes through control points, which aligns with the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers parameter semantics.
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 verb ('Add') and resource ('spline'), and mentions the key input ('control points'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like catia_sketch_polyline or catia_gsd_spline, which also create curves. The purpose is clear but not uniquely distinguished.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., active sketch) or exclusions (e.g., not for GSD splines). The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.