dream-creo-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

model_new

Create a new empty millimeter part or assembly in a specified folder and open it in its own Creo window for feature modeling.

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.

Create a new empty mm model in dir and open it in its own window. kind=part (default, template mmns_part_solid, datums RIGHT/TOP/FRONT/PRT_CSYS_DEF) or kind=asm (template mmns_asm_design). Put parts into an assembly with model_edit action=assemble (file=<part.prt>, into_asm=<name.asm>); without constraints the part is placed at the assembly origin.

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>",
      "dir": "<dir>"
    },
    "name": "model_new"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dir`	Yes	Absolute folder for the .prt file
`kind`	No
`name`	Yes	Part name without .prt
`overwrite`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses units, naming rules, templates and datums, model axes, feature rollback behavior, and that nothing is saved unless model_save is called. The main gap is that the overwrite parameter's behavior is not explained, and there is no discussion of permissions or error handling.

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?

The actual model_new operation is buried in the second paragraph after broad plugin and geometry context, and the opening phrase "Creates/edits geometry" is imprecise for a tool that creates a model. Much of the content is useful, but the front-loading is poor and some global guidance does not directly serve this tool's selection.

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 four-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains part/assembly creation, templates, naming, placement into assemblies, and directs the agent to model_info and preview_image for verification. It still leaves the return value and overwrite behavior unspecified, so it is not fully complete.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates for some of that by explaining kind=part versus kind=asm, including templates and defaults. However, overwrite is left undocumented in both the schema and description, and the name guidance largely repeats the schema's pattern and description.

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 second paragraph states a specific verb and resource: "Create a new empty mm model in dir and open it in its own window." It also distinguishes parts from assemblies and points to model_edit action=assemble for the related assembly workflow, so the agent can separate this from sibling tools such as model_open and model_save.

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 gives clear usage context: create a new empty part or assembly, and use model_edit action=assemble to place parts into an assembly. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name model_open as the alternative for existing models, but the creation context is unambiguous.

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