Retrieve the active SolidWorks document's name, file path, type, and SolidWorks version; starts SolidWorks if needed so you can inspect the current model before editing.
Name, path and type of the active SolidWorks document, and the SolidWorks version. Starts SolidWorks if it is not running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds a genuinely important behavioral fact beyond them: it will launch SolidWorks if it is not running, a non-trivial side effect an agent should anticipate. It does not say what happens when SolidWorks is running but no document is open (error versus empty result), which is the main remaining ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the primary content (what is returned) is front-loaded and the side-effect caveat follows. Nothing repeats the name or title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the annotations cover safety; the description supplies the one piece of context structured data cannot express (auto-start behavior). The only gap is undefined behavior when no document is active, which matters for an agent deciding whether to call it defensively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter text is needed and none is missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the exact resource returned — the active document's name, path, type, plus the SolidWorks version — so the agent knows precisely what data it yields, and it is clearly distinguishable from data-querying siblings like get_feature_tree or get_mass_properties. It is a noun-phrase specification of return values rather than an explicit verb, which slightly weakens the action framing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the way to learn which document is currently open before doing document-related work. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of alternatives (e.g. versus a listing tool), and no stated preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.