Retrieve edges from a SOLIDWORKS model filtered by face, feature, bounding region, or minimum length, with verified measurements and error evidence in mm.
List edges through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine. Public geometry units are mm, degrees and kg. Inspect verified measurements and error evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| face | No | ||
| feature | No | ||
| within_mm | No | ||
| min_length_mm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that output geometry uses mm/degrees/kg and that results include verified measurements and error evidence, but it does not describe the record shape, ordering, or how large result sets behave.
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 short and front-loaded with the core action, which is good. However, the trailing clause 'Inspect verified measurements and error evidence' is abstract filler that neither clarifies what is returned nor how to call the tool.
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 four-parameter geometry query with no output schema, the description should explain the filter semantics and the shape of returned edge data. It covers only units and a general nod to measurement evidence, leaving an agent unable to predict what within_mm or face accept and what the 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% for four optional parameters, so the description carries the full burden yet explains almost none of them. The unit note implies that min_length_mm is in millimetres, but the face and feature filters, and the nested 2x3 coordinate array in within_mm, are left entirely undefined.
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 ('List edges') and names the engine it runs through, so the agent knows it is a geometry query. It does not differentiate scope from close siblings such as list_faces or list_dimensions, nor does it say whether the result is the whole model or filtered by the call parameters.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named for the case where the agent wants faces or features instead of edges. Usage is only implied by the list function and the mention of inspecting measurements and error evidence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.