Retrieve the current CATIA connection state: release version, active document and its type, number of open documents, and the most recent geometry generated by the server.
Report the current connection: CATIA release, the active document and its type, how many documents are open, and the geometry this server created most recently.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the exact information returned (release, active document, type, open document count, recent geometry). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Report the current connection') and lists the specific data points. There is no fluff or repetition; every part of the description earns its place.
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 parameterless read-only status tool, the description fully specifies what the tool returns. It doesn't mention potential failure conditions (e.g., not connected) or whether the recent geometry is from the active document, but these are minor for a status check. No output schema is provided, so the description's enumeration of returned data is sufficient.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, and the schema is fully covered (100%). The description adds no parameter semantics, but since there are zero parameters, there is nothing to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, which is appropriate here.
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 tool reports current connection status including CATIA release, active document, type, count, and recent geometry. It uses a specific verb 'report' and defines the resource (connection state). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like catia_document_info or catia_check_environment, the specificity of what it returns makes its purpose 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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as catia_document_info or catia_list_documents. The description implies it's a general status check, but it doesn't state when this is preferable to other diagnostic tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites like being connected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.