Change the 3D camera view by zooming in or out in discrete steps, or reframe it centered on a specified element.
Zoom the 3D view in or out by a number of steps, or reframe on one element.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | No | Positive zooms in, negative zooms out. | |
| on_element | No | Optional reference token to centre on; the element is selected and the view reframed around it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds that it zooms the 3D view and can reframe on an element, which is useful but doesn't go deeper into side effects (e.g., view state persistence, interaction with selection). Given annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
One sentence, 17 words, front-loaded with the core action and resource. It efficiently covers both modes with zero waste.
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?
Complete for a simple view-navigation tool: annotations cover mutation/non-destructive, schema covers all params end-to-end with descriptions. The only minor gap is the unspecified interaction when both steps and on_element are supplied together, which the 'or' leaves ambiguous.
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%: both parameters are well-described with defaults and sign semantics. The description adds only slight context ('3D view', 'reframe') that mostly paraphrases the schema, so it doesn't materially increase meaning beyond the structured fields.
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?
States a specific verb (Zoom) and resource (3D view), and describes two distinct actions: stepping in/out and reframing on an element. It is clear, but doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling view tools like catia_fit_all or catia_set_view.
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?
Implies usage by describing the action, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling view controls such as catia_fit_all or catia_set_view. No alternatives named, no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.