Forces recalculation of the current part or assembly and reports whether it completes without errors, including flagged mates and mates that lost reference geometry.
Force a rebuild of the current part or assembly and report whether it rebuilt without errors.
In an assembly, mate_errors names each mate SolidWorks flags, and each mate that lost a face or edge it used (it rebuilds fine, but holds nothing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.16.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful return semantics – that in assemblies mate_errors names each flagged mate, and distinguishes mates that rebuild 'fine, but hold nothing' (dangling references). However it never states that a rebuild mutates/regenerates geometry, what the top_only flag does, or any document/state requirements.
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?
Front-loaded purpose followed by an assembly-specific note. Two focused sentences with little waste, though the mate_errors clause is somewhat dense and could be tightened.
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?
No output schema and no annotations mean the description must cover both behavior and returns, and it partially does via the mate_errors explanation. But it omits the top_only parameter entirely and says nothing about mutation side effects or required state, leaving real gaps for a write-type operation.
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 single parameter top_only has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. Since the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap, an agent cannot tell that top_only limits the rebuild to the top-level assembly rather than rebuilding children.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Force a rebuild of the current part or assembly and report whether it rebuilt without errors.' An agent immediately knows the action and the object. No sibling tool performs rebuilds, so explicit differentiation isn't required, though it never names what it is not.
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 current part or assembly' – the agent infers it must be run against an active document. There is no explicit guidance on when to rebuild versus inspecting features or status, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g., an open/active document must exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.