Adds a part or sub-assembly to the active SolidWorks assembly at specified X, Y, and Z coordinates in millimeters.
Inserts a part or sub-assembly component into the active assembly at (x, y, z) mm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| x_mm | No | ||
| y_mm | No | ||
| z_mm | No |
| 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=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that placement is in millimeters and that the insertion targets the active document, but says nothing about whether a new instance/reference is created, what happens on repeat calls, or what the operation requires of the source part.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action, the object, the target document, and the units. Nothing is wasted.
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 described, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is the required 'path' argument's format/source and any prerequisite check on an active assembly, which the description does not supply.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% – the schema exposes only titles. The description clarifies the x/y/z units (mm) but never explains the required 'path' parameter (presumably a file path to the part/sub-assembly) or the 0 defaults. With zero schema coverage, the single most important parameter is left undocumented.
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 and resource ('Inserts a part or sub-assembly component') plus the target container ('active assembly'). This distinguishes it from siblings like new_part and new_assembly, though it does not name any sibling 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?
'Active assembly' implies the prerequisite that an assembly document must already be open, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and nothing tells the agent how this differs from new_assembly or new_part in a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.