aras-plm-mcp

aras_get_documents

Fetch all documents, drawings, specifications, manuals, and CAD models for a part in a single query. Use partId to retrieve both document and CAD relationships together.

Instructions

Tutta la documentazione di una Part: Document (disegni, specifiche, manuali) e modelli CAD in una sola chiamata. In Aras sono due relazioni distinte ma rispondono alla stessa domanda.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "partId": "<partId>"
    },
    "name": "aras_get_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`partId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful behavioral context: it combines two distinct relationships (Document and CAD) into one call. It does not disclose return format, read-only nature, or error behavior, but for a simple getter this is a moderate gap.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds valuable context about the two Aras relationships.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers the core purpose and scope. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the response contains (e.g., metadata vs. file content) or any limitations, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, partId, with no description (0% coverage). The description only refers to 'una Part' and does not explain what partId should contain, its format, or how it is used. The description should compensate for the missing schema documentation but does not.

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 tool returns all documentation for a Part, explicitly listing Documents (drawings, specifications, manuals) and CAD models in one call. It identifies the resource and scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aras_get_files or aras_get_relationships.

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 phrase 'in una sola chiamata' and the note that two distinct Aras relationships answer the same question imply this tool is for fetching both document and CAD data together. However, it does not state when to prefer alternatives or provide explicit exclusions.

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

Deploy Server