dream-creo-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

hole

Drills straight cylindrical cuts with a specified diameter in a Creo part via linear or coaxial placement, using through-all, through-next, or blind depth, with optional side flipping.

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.

Straight hole. placement=linear: on planar face/datum 'face', at dist1 from ref1 and dist2 from ref2 (planes or edges). placement=coax: along axis 'axis', starting at plane 'face'. depth_type: through_all (default), through_next, blind (needs depth). Holes drill one side of the placement plane: flip=true drills the other side, both_sides=true drills both. If volume did not change, the hole went into empty space: retry with flip=true.

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>",
      "placement": "<placement>",
      "face": "<face>",
      "diameter": "<diameter>"
    },
    "name": "hole"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`axis`	No	Datum name (FRONT, TOP, RIGHT, DTM1...) or an id from find_geometry/model_info: surface:N, edge:N, axis:N
`face`	Yes	Datum name (FRONT, TOP, RIGHT, DTM1...) or an id from find_geometry/model_info: surface:N, edge:N, axis:N
`flip`	No
`name`	Yes	Part name without .prt
`ref1`	No	Datum name (FRONT, TOP, RIGHT, DTM1...) or an id from find_geometry/model_info: surface:N, edge:N, axis:N
`ref2`	No	Datum name (FRONT, TOP, RIGHT, DTM1...) or an id from find_geometry/model_info: surface:N, edge:N, axis:N
`depth`	No
`dist1`	No
`dist2`	No
`diameter`	Yes
`placement`	Yes
`both_sides`	No
`depth_type`	No
`feature_name`	No	Optional feature name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral load and does so well: it discloses units (mm, degrees), part naming conventions, model axis orientation, that each feature call either leaves an active feature or rolls back, and critically that 'Nothing is saved unless model_save is called.' It also directs verification via model_info and preview_image and warns of the no-mirror constraint.

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 generic plugin preamble is a bit long for a hole tool, but it carries cross-cutting information (units, axes, save semantics) that applies to the call. The hole-specific paragraph is front-loaded with the operation name and tightly organized by placement then depth. Little is wasteful.

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 14-parameter geometry tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation, the two placement paths, depth behavior, flip/both_sides semantics, and how to verify results. It stops short of describing return values or error surfaces, relying instead on model_info/preview_image, which is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 only 43% across 14 parameters, but the description compensates by explaining placement, face, axis, ref1/ref2, dist1/dist2, depth_type, depth, flip, and both_sides in prose, adding meaning the bare schema lacks. The remaining gap is minor: feature_name and the exact datum/ID reference syntax are left mostly to the schema.

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 opens with a specific, unambiguous statement: 'Straight hole,' and then details the two placement modes and the depth types. It is clearly a distinct feature-creation tool relative to siblings like extrude, revolve, or round, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those operations (e.g., a cut extrude).

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?

It explains which placement mode to use and what each requires (linear needs face + ref1/ref2 + dist1/dist2; coax needs axis + face), and it gives concrete recovery guidance: 'If volume did not change, the hole went into empty space: retry with flip=true.' There are no explicit exclusions or comparisons with alternative cut operations, which keeps it below 5.

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