Combine multiple solid bodies into one using native SOLIDWORKS geometry; verify measurements and error evidence.
Combine bodies through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine. Public geometry units are mm, degrees and kg. Inspect verified measurements and error evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| main | Yes | ||
| name | No | Combine | |
| tools | No | ||
| operation | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful unit conventions and the mention of error evidence, but it does not disclose the key destructive consequence for this operation: that source bodies are consumed/merged, nor any permission or document-state requirement.
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 the purpose front-loaded, so it is not padded. But the closing sentence about inspecting measurements and error evidence is vague and reads as boilerplate rather than actionable guidance.
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?
For a destructive, non-idempotent modeling operation with full schema opacity and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it does not define the operation modes, the role of `main` versus `tools`, or what a successful result contains.
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 4 parameters, so the description carries the entire burden of explaining `operation`, `main`, `tools`, and `name`. It mentions none of them, and notably gives no valid values for the required, enum-less `operation` string.
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?
"Combine bodies" is a clear verb+resource pair and is distinguishable from the nearest sibling, split_body. However, the description never says what kind of combine (boolean add/subtract/intersect) is meant, even though the required `operation` parameter implies meaningful variation, leaving the actual capability ambiguous.
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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as split_body, add_lofted_solid, or the profile/extrude family. No prerequisites (open document, existing bodies) or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.