Retrieve the minimum and maximum X, Y, Z coordinates and overall size of solid bodies in the active SolidWorks part, in millimeters.
Bounding box of the solid bodies of the active part: min/max on X, Y, Z and overall size, in mm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_mm | Yes | ||
| min_mm | Yes | ||
| size_mm | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is fully covered. The description's real contribution is scope ('solid bodies of the active part') and units (mm), which is useful, but it does not say what happens with no active part, no solid bodies, or surface-only bodies.
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?
One tight sentence with the returned quantities and units front-loaded; every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from annotations or schema.
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 structure need not be restated, and the description still names the returned values and units. Scope is well bounded (active part, solid bodies only); only edge-case behavior for empty/no-active-part states is missing.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain – baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is fully parameterless and scoped implicitly to the active document.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: bounding box of the solid bodies of the active part, with exact outputs (min/max X/Y/Z and overall size in mm). It is clearly distinguishable from get_mass_properties and get_dimensions by content, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 only implied by the phrase 'of the solid bodies of the active part' – an agent can infer it queries current geometry extents, but no when-to-use vs. measure/get_dimensions guidance or prerequisites (e.g., an active part must have solid bodies) are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.