Checks SOLIDWORKS geometry for 3D printability by testing minimum wall thickness and overhang angles, then reports verified measurements and error evidence.
Check printability through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine. Public geometry units are mm, degrees and kg. Inspect verified measurements and error evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| up | No | +z | |
| min_wall_mm | No | ||
| overhang_deg | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that the engine is 'independent native SOLIDWORKS' and that results include 'verified measurements and error evidence' — it never says what a report contains, whether analysis can be slow, or what happens on failure. The value added beyond annotations is thin.
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?
Three short sentences with no padding, but 'through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' is promotional wording that displaces information an agent actually needs, and the units sentence is oddly placed before any parameter explanation.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey the shape of results — it gestures at 'verified measurements and error evidence' but not the fields or meaning. Combined with completely undocumented parameters and an unspecified check set, the definition is under-specified for a geometry analysis tool.
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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it covers almost none of it. Stating 'public geometry units are mm, degrees and kg' does clarify the units of min_wall_mm and overhang_deg, but the 'up' parameter (build orientation, default '+z') and the semantics of 'min_wall' or 'overhang' thresholds are never explained.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check printability') and names an engine, but it never says what printability checks are performed (wall thickness, overhang, orientation) or how this differs from the closely related sibling check_interference. An agent knows the general goal but not the concrete analysis performed.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as a loaded part or a mesh, and no pointer to alternatives among the many sibling tools. The agent must infer everything about selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.