dream-creo-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

feature_resume

Restores suppressed Creo part features by ID or name, including parent features by default unless parent resumption is disabled.

Instructions

Creates/edits geometry in the running Creo 5 through the DreamFeatureApp plugin. There is no mirror tool: build symmetric shapes with symmetric extrudes, revolves or patterns. Units are mm and degrees. Parts are addressed by name (lowercase, no .prt). Model axes: FRONT is the XY plane (normal +Z), TOP is XZ (normal +Y), RIGHT is YZ (normal +X). Each feature call either ends with an active feature or is rolled back. Nothing is saved unless model_save is called. Check results with model_info (volume, bound_box) and preview_image.

Bring back suppressed features (ids or names); their parents are resumed too unless with_parents=false.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "features": "<features>"
    },
    "name": "feature_resume"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Part name without .prt
`features`	Yes	Feature ids or names
`with_parents`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior beyond the schema: that parent features are resumed transitively unless with_parents=false, and that changes are not persisted unless model_save is called. But the bulk of the prose (mirror workarounds, units, axis conventions) describes geometry construction, not resumption, so the tool-specific disclosure is thin.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Five sentences of general Creo/plugin boilerplate precede the single sentence that actually describes this tool, so the definition is badly back-loaded and largely irrelevant. The material about mirror workarounds, mm/degrees, and FRONT/TOP/RIGHT planes does not earn its place in a resume tool's description.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the key semantics (feature identifiers, parent cascade, unsaved state, verification via model_info and preview_image). The gaps are about ordering and relevance rather than missing essentials, so it is adequate but noisy.

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 coverage is 67%, with the undocumented parameter being with_parents. The description compensates directly by explaining that parents resume too unless with_parents=false, which is exactly the meaning missing from the schema. It also reinforces that features may be given as ids or names, matching the oneOf schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The final sentence states the actual operation precisely ("Bring back suppressed features (ids or names)"), which is a clear verb+resource. However, the opening sentence claims the tool "Creates/edits geometry," which is misleading for a resume operation and forces the agent to read to the end to find the real purpose. The name and last sentence together are decipherable, but the leading framing actively works against clarity.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource: use this to undo a suppression, with feature_suppress as the obvious inverse sibling. The description adds a useful conditional (parents are resumed unless with_parents=false), but never states prerequisites such as whether the part must already be open in the session, nor does it name the alternative explicitly.

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