Retrieve a model’s bounding box from the native SOLIDWORKS engine to verify overall dimensions and inspect measurement evidence in millimeters, degrees, and kilograms.
Get bounding box through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine. Public geometry units are mm, degrees and kg. Inspect verified measurements and error evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already fully declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful context — public units are mm/degrees/kg and the result carries verified measurements plus error evidence — but 'independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' is unexplained and no output shape is described despite there being no output schema.
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 core action front-loaded and no padding. The middle phrase about the 'independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' is vague marketing language that does not earn its place.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what the bounding box is relative to (coordinate frame, active document, part vs assembly) and roughly what the response contains. 'Verified measurements and error evidence' gestures at this without specifying it.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The stated unit conventions (mm, degrees, kg) are still helpful for interpreting the result even though they are not parameters.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get bounding box'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling get_assembly_bounding_box, leaving the part-vs-assembly scope 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 when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of which document must be active, no conditions under which to prefer get_assembly_bounding_box or get_mass_properties, and no exclusions. The agent must infer applicability from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.