Skip to main content
Glama
520-YM

codex-creo-mcp

by 520-YM

creo_create_safe_advanced_hole_copy

Copy the active Creo part and create one advanced hole in the new copy for blind, counterbore, countersink, or threaded styles. Thread data is validated and removal is guarded.

Instructions

Copy the current Creo part and create one advanced hole only in the new copy. Enabled styles are regular straight blind, custom counterbore, custom countersink, and standard threaded holes. Threaded-hole drill diameter is read from the installed Creo .hol table and the saved thread metadata is verified. The operation refuses overwrite, requires an active hole feature, requires volume to decrease, and applies a style-specific maximum-removal guard.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthYes
styleNoblind
offset1Yes
offset2Yes
diameterNo
copy_nameYes
hole_nameYes
thread_sizeNoFASTENER_ID from the selected Creo hole table, for example M4x.7.
thread_depthNoRequired for threaded style and must be less than depth.
primary_planeNoFRONT
thread_seriesNoInstalled Creo .hol table name without extension.ISO
direction_sideNoSide of the primary datum plane into which the blind hole is cut.
expected_modelYes
reference_plane1NoRIGHT
reference_plane2NoTOP
counterbore_depthNoRequired for counterbore style and must be less than depth.
countersink_angleNoIncluded countersink angle in degrees; required for countersink style.
counterbore_diameterNoRequired for counterbore style and must be greater than diameter.
countersink_diameterNoRequired for countersink style and must be greater than diameter.
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only reveal that the tool mutates and is not idempotent. The description adds substantial behavioral context: reading thread drill diameter from a .hol table, verifying thread metadata, refusing overwrite, requiring an active hole feature, requiring volume decrease, and applying a style-specific maximum-removal guard. None of this contradicts the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences deliver the core action, supported styles, thread behavior, and safety constraints without wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place for a tool of this complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is strong on safety behavior and style coverage, but the tool has 19 parameters and no output schema, and the description leaves required fields like offsets and naming conventions partly unexplained. The schema helps with ranges and style dependencies, yet the overall contract is not fully specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 42%, so the description needed to compensate for many undocumented parameters. It does little for expected_model, copy_name, hole_name, depth, offset1, and offset2. It adds only indirect thread-related meaning by explaining that threaded drill diameter comes from the installed .hol table.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: copy the current Creo part and create one advanced hole in the copy. It differentiates the tool from siblings by naming the supported hole styles and framing it as an advanced-hole operation rather than a plain hole, dimension, or parameter copy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Supported styles and preconditions like 'requires an active hole feature' give implied usage guidance, but the description never explicitly names alternatives such as creo_create_safe_thru_hole_copy or states when this tool should not be used. Given the many sibling copy tools, more direct routing would be better.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/520-YM/codex-creo-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server