Lists solid bodies in the active SOLIDWORKS model and returns verified measurements plus error evidence in mm, degrees, and kg.
List 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
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 declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: public geometry units are mm/degrees/kg and the result carries verified measurements plus error evidence. It still says nothing about whether the listing covers the active document only, whether it is paginated, or what happens when no bodies exist.
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, but only the first is front-loaded and informative; the units sentence reads as boilerplate while listing bodies rarely returns angles, and "Inspect verified measurements and error evidence" is vague imperative instruction rather than description. Nothing is wasted, but the content is thin and slightly off-target.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description needs mainly to say what a returned body record contains and its scope. It gestures at measurement and error data but does not describe the return shape or document scope, leaving an agent to discover the output empirically.
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 of 4 applies. The unit statement (mm, degrees, kg) is at least relevant to interpreting the returned quantities.
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?
"List bodies" restates the tool name with little added specificity; the description never clarifies whether these are solid bodies in the active part, assembly components, or something else. It also does not distinguish it from siblings like list_faces, list_edges, or list_features, which an agent would plausibly confuse with it.
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 which document must be active, and no named alternative. "Inspect verified measurements and error evidence" hints at a follow-up workflow but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over list_features or get_mass_properties.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.