Place a component from a file path into a SOLIDWORKS assembly at specified millimeter coordinates, optionally fixing it and returning verified measurements and error evidence.
Insert component through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine. Public geometry units are mm, degrees and kg. Inspect verified measurements and error evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| x_mm | No | ||
| y_mm | No | ||
| z_mm | No | ||
| fixed | 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 destructive=true, idempotent=false, and readOnly=false, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds useful unit conventions and mentions inspecting measurements and error evidence, but it does not explain overwrite behavior, assembly requirements, or what insertion destroys.
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?
The definition is three short sentences with the action front-loaded. The final sentence about inspecting measurements and error evidence is somewhat vague but does not create bloat.
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?
This is a destructive mutation tool with no output schema and five undocumented parameters. The description should clarify assembly context, path handling, fixed behavior, and expected failure/error reporting, but most of that is missing.
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 coverage is 0% for five parameters. The description helps by declaring public geometry units as mm, degrees, and kg, but it does not explain the required path parameter, the x/y/z origin semantics, or what fixed controls.
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: 'Insert component' via a native SOLIDWORKS engine. It is distinguishable from sibling creation tools like add_box or add_extruded_profile, though it does not explicitly name which sibling 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus replace_component, set_component_transform, or other assembly tools. It also omits the prerequisite that an assembly likely must be open or active.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.