dream-creo-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

sweep

Creates constant-section geometry along a sketch curve or joined edges in Creo, and optionally removes material to form cut features.

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.

Constant-section sweep along a trajectory: the feature_name of a sketch_curve, or a list of edge:N joined end to end. The section sketch is drawn in the frame at the trajectory start, origin = start point (e.g. 'C 0 0 5' for a 10 mm pipe). cut=true removes material. Uses the same sketch commands as extrude.

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>",
      "trajectory": "<trajectory>",
      "sketch": "<sketch>"
    },
    "name": "sweep"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cut`	No
`name`	Yes	Part name without .prt
`coords`	No	Point format of sketch: model = 'x y z' model coordinates (recommended)
`sketch`	Yes
`trajectory`	Yes
`feature_name`	No	Optional feature name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses rollback semantics (each call ends active or rolled back), that nothing persists without model_save, unit conventions (mm/degrees), the coordinate frame, and verification via model_info/preview_image. It omits failure modes and what an error or partial sweep looks like, so not a full 5.

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 tool-specific sentences are front-loaded and waste little, opening immediately with the sweep definition and trajectory forms. The leading block is shared model context (axes, save state, mirror note), which is useful but pads the definition and slightly delays the tool-specific content.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the trajectory, section frame, cut behavior, unit and axis conventions, and the save/rollback lifecycle. Only finer details (error behavior, edge-case handling, exact sketch encoding) remain unstated, so it is close to complete.

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?

Against 50% schema coverage, the description adds real meaning: it explains that the section sketch is drawn in the frame at the trajectory start with origin at the start point, and gives a concrete example ('C 0 0 5' for a 10 mm pipe), plus the accepted trajectory syntax. This substantially compensates for the schema gap, though the coords enum and name conventions are still only partially elaborated.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Constant-section sweep along a trajectory', with an explicit trajectory form and a broad hint of the profile via the '10 mm pipe' example. An agent can distinguish this from extrude, revolve, and pattern without opening another schema.

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 names the accepted trajectory inputs (a sketch_curve feature_name or a joined list of edge:N), explains cut=true for material removal, and notes it reuses extrude's sketch commands. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance for choosing sweep over extrude/revolve, leaving some inference to the model.

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