Inserts model dimensions marked for drawing into every view of the active 2D drawing, so you can populate dimensions without adding them view by view.
Inserts model dimensions marked for drawing across all views in the active 2D drawing.
| 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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine scope information — the insert fans out across ALL views in the active drawing, not a selected view — but says nothing about what happens on repeat invocation, which matters given idempotentHint=false (duplicate dimensions are likely).
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by its scope of effect. Nothing to cut.
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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and with no parameters the call signature is trivial. The remaining gap is precondition/failure context — what happens if no drawing is active or no dimensions are marked, and whether re-running duplicates dimensions.
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. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed; the only implicit input is the active document and the marked-dimension state in the model.
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 a specific verb and resource ("Inserts model dimensions") and scopes it precisely ("marked for drawing across all views in the active 2D drawing"). It is distinguishable from the dimension siblings (get_dimensions, set_dimension, add_sketch_dimension) by its drawing-view import semantics, though it never names an alternative 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 implied rather than stated: the agent must infer that a 2D drawing must be active and that dimensions must already be marked in the model before calling. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to sibling tools such as get_dimensions or add_sketch_dimension.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.