freecad-mcp

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.15
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes (create, edit, delete, list, get). The edit_object tool description mentions it is used when create_object cannot handle creation, which could cause slight confusion, but overall each tool's intent is clear.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as create_object, list_documents, get_view. Pluralization for list/get operations is appropriate and consistent.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools covering document management, object CRUD, viewing, parts library, and code execution, the count is well-scoped for a CAD tool server, providing necessary functionality without bloat.
Completeness4/5
Core CRUD and document operations are covered. Missing are save/close document tools, but arbitrary code execution via execute_code can fill gaps. Overall, the tool surface is reasonably complete for typical CAD workflows.
Average 3.6/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions that the tool edits an object and returns a success/failure message along with a screenshot, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or constraints, making it minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise with five sentences. It front-loads the purpose and includes argument and return descriptions. However, the second sentence could be tighter without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 params, nested object), the description is lacking. It does not explain what kinds of properties can be edited, mention prerequisites (e.g., document and object must exist), or provide usage examples. The output schema exists but no details are given, though the description mentions the return format.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It lists three parameters but only repeats their names without providing additional semantic context or examples. The description for obj_properties is vague ('The properties of the object to edit'), failing to compensate for the lack of schema details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Describes editing an object in FreeCAD, which is clear. Distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'create_object' by stating it is used when create_object cannot handle creation, thereby differentiating its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use this tool (when create_object cannot handle object creation), providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or suggest alternatives beyond this sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions return value (object + screenshot) but omits details about side effects, error handling, permissions, or the non-destructive nature (implicit only).
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?
The description is concise with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and uses clear section headers for arguments and returns, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter getter tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and return value. Missing error scenarios or edge cases, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates by naming and explaining each parameter: 'doc_name' as document name, 'obj_name' as object name. This is basic but adequate; no details on format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'object from a document,' with additional context about inspecting properties. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'get_objects', the singular form and specific language imply the distinction.
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?
The description provides usage context ('to get the properties of an object to see what you can check or edit'), but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as 'get_objects' or 'get_view'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'get', implying read-only, but does not explicitly state it. No mention of side effects, permissions, or other behaviors beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences plus an Args/Returns section. It front-loads the purpose. The second sentence ('You can use this tool...') is slightly redundant but not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers what returns (list of objects and screenshot). It does not explain the structure of objects or screenshot details, but that is acceptable with an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'doc_name' has no description in the input schema (0% coverage). The description compensates by including an Args section that explains it as 'The name of the document to get the objects from.' This adds meaning beyond the schema type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets all objects in a document, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_object' (singular) or 'get_view', which limits clarity about scope.
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?
The description implies usage for inspecting objects before editing or checking them, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_object for a single object). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it returns a list, but lacks details on read-only nature, potential pagination, or any side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list-retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and an output schema available, the description is largely sufficient. However, it could briefly mention the return format or any limits. The presence of an output schema mitigates the lack of detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 3 due to 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-related meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable for a parameterless tool.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of parts in the parts library addon', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'insert_part_from_library' which performs a write operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it inserts a part and returns a message/screenshot, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or failure modes. Incomplete for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is extremely concise with no wasted words, conveying purpose, parameter, and return in three short lines. Front-loaded with the main verb.
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?
For a simple 1-param tool with output schema, the description covers basics but lacks usage context and behavioral details. Adequate but not rich enough given sibling tools and no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal meaning to 'relative_path' (says it's the path of the part to insert). Schema coverage is 0% so description compensates slightly, but it's largely restating the parameter name.
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 clearly states it inserts a part from the 'parts library addon', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_object' (creates arbitrary objects) and 'get_parts_list' (lists parts), so purpose is well-defined.
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?
The description implies usage (inserting from parts library) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No prerequisites or alternative tools are mentioned, so it's only adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description only states basic operation and return type. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Missing details on side effects, permissions, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
First sentence states purpose effectively, but the docstring format (Args, Returns, Examples) adds unnecessary verbosity. Could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema exists), description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and example. However, lacks details on failure scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; the description adds meaning by stating that 'name' is the name of the document, with an example. This compensates for the bare schema.
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?
Clear verb 'Create' and resource 'document' in FreeCAD. Distinguished from siblings like create_object and list_documents.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks context for alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the return value. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires FreeCAD to be running, or handle empty states, which are critical for safe invocation.
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?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence and a returns clause. It contains no unnecessary words and is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, trivial output), the description is adequate. However, it could mention that the tool works only when FreeCAD is active, but the output schema likely covers return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete. The description adds no parameter details, but this is acceptable as baseline 4 for parameterless tools.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of open documents', making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_objects and get_parts_list by focusing on documents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as get_objects. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returning a success/failure message and screenshot but omits critical details like whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, or has cascading effects.
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?
The description is concise and structured with a header, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 covers inputs and outputs adequately, but given the tool's destructive nature, it could mention handling of missing objects or undo capabilities. The presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns') partially compensates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose (doc_name and obj_name). This adds value beyond the schema's titles alone.
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 clearly states 'Delete an object in FreeCAD' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_object and list_documents by its deletion purpose.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (when an object needs to be deleted) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that execution can be arbitrary, and returns success/failure, output, and a screenshot. However, it omits security implications, timeouts, or side effects.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus an Args/Returns block. It front-loads the purpose, and every sentence serves a clear function without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter and existing output schema, the description explains the return values (message, output, screenshot) well. Minor gaps (no execution limits, environment details) prevent a 5.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description only restates the parameter name and type ('code: The Python code to execute'), adding no additional meaning like format, examples, or constraints.
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 'Execute arbitrary Python code in FreeCAD' with a specific verb ('execute') and resource ('Python code'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_object or get_view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Get a screenshot') and explains defaults for width, height, and focus_object. However, it does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no destructive effects) or handling of edge cases like invalid view names.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It is concise yet complete, with no redundant information. Every sentence provides necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple screenshot tool, the description covers parameters and return value adequately. An output schema exists, so return explanation is sufficient. Minor gaps remain (e.g., error behavior, supported formats), but overall it is complete for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: view_name (with enumerated options), width and height (with defaults), and focus_object (with default). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal information.
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 clearly states 'Get a screenshot of the active view', which is a specific verb+resource. This purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_object, delete_object, etc., as it focuses on capturing a view rather than manipulating or listing objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate. The usage context is entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions returns a message and screenshot but lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements. No annotations are provided to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with summary, Args, Returns, and Examples, but the examples are numerous and could be trimmed for conciseness while still being informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity and presence of output schema, the description covers parameters and examples adequately. It lacks details on error handling but is otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter in Args and provides detailed examples showing usage of doc_name, obj_type, obj_name, analysis_name, and obj_properties, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states 'Create a new object in FreeCAD' and lists supported object types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_object and edit_object.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides when to use the tool (creating various objects) and gives extensive examples. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![freecad-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DaveEdge1/freecad-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DaveEdge1/freecad-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![freecad-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DaveEdge1/freecad-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DaveEdge1/freecad-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/DaveEdge1/freecad-mcp'

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