dream-creo-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

model_info

Retrieves feature details, bounding box, and volume for a named Creo part, so you can verify geometry and check modeling results.

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.

Features (id, name, type, status 0=active, dims, axes), bound_box and volume of a part.

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>"
    },
    "name": "model_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Part name without .prt

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it never states that model_info is side-effect-free. It does add genuinely useful behavioral context for interpreting results: units are mm and degrees, and model axes are defined (FRONT=XY, TOP=XZ, RIGHT=YZ), which an agent needs to read bound_box output correctly. Side-effect and failure behavior for this specific call remain unstated.

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?

Most of the text is cross-tool documentation (mirror absence, feature rollback, model_save, axis conventions) that belongs in a toolset overview, not in a single-part inspection tool. The one sentence that actually defines model_info is buried at the very end, violating front-loading.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does enumerate the return payload (features with id/name/type/status/dims/axes, bound_box, volume) plus units, which covers what an agent needs to interpret results. However, the heavy surrounding content is off-topic for this tool, and it omits whether the call is safe/read-only or what happens for an unknown part name.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is already 3-4. 'Parts are addressed by name (lowercase, no .prt)' reinforces the naming convention beyond the regex pattern, clarifying intent rather than merely repeating the schema.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description opens by describing a different capability entirely ('Creates/edits geometry... through the DreamFeatureApp plugin'), which is the toolset's purpose, not this tool's. Only the trailing fragment ('Features (id, name, type, status 0=active, dims, axes), bound_box and volume of a part') reveals that model_info is a read/inspection tool, and the verb is never stated for model_info itself. An agent could easily misread this as a feature-creation tool.

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?

'Check results with model_info (volume, bound_box) and preview_image' gives a concrete when-to-use cue, and 'Nothing is saved unless model_save is called' sets surrounding workflow context. There is no when-not guidance and no explicit statement that this is the read-only alternative to the geometry-mutating siblings (extrude, revolve, etc.).

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