Retrieves custom properties from the active SolidWorks document, such as description and part number, so BOMs and title blocks can be populated or verified.
Custom properties of the active document (description, part number, ...), as used in BOMs and title blocks.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, and an output schema exists. The description adds useful context that it targets the 'active document' and gives example properties, but does not describe return format or behavior beyond the structured fields.
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?
A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope. The trailing 'as used in BOMs and title blocks' clause earns its place as domain context, though the phrasing could be slightly tighter.
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?
With zero params, full annotations, and an output schema, the description needs to convey only purpose and scope, which it does. The only minor gap is not distinguishing this read from the set_custom_property write sibling.
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 there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and nothing is left ambiguous.
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 resource (custom properties) scoped to the active document and gives concrete examples (description, part number). However, it is phrased as a noun rather than a verb+resource and never mentions the sibling set_custom_property, leaving the read-vs-write distinction implicit.
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?
'as used in BOMs and title blocks' describes what the properties are for, not when to call this tool or how it differs from get_active_document_info or set_custom_property. No when/when-not guidance or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.