Lists equations from the native SOLIDWORKS engine so you can inspect verified measurements and error evidence in mm, degrees, and kg.
List equations 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no ordering, no what-counts-as-an-equation, no failure modes — and instead asserts vague claims about "verified measurements and error evidence" that read as templated boilerplate rather than real disclosure.
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, so it is not bloated, but the middle and final sentences are noise that dilutes the one useful clause. The purpose is not front-loaded with any detail about what is actually listed.
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 output schema and zero parameters, the description is the only place an agent can learn what a listed equation contains (name, expression, evaluated value, ordering). It says nothing about the return shape and spends its budget on unrelated measurement/error language.
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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description could add. The units sentence (mm, degrees, kg) is marginally relevant context but not tied to any argument.
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 equations" gives a clear verb plus resource that separates it from set_equation, set_equations and delete_equation among the siblings. The trailing boilerplate about "the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" and "verified measurements" muddies rather than sharpens the purpose, keeping it below a 5.
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?
The description never states when to call this instead of list_dimensions, list_features or the equation-mutation siblings. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and the closing sentence about inspecting measurements and error evidence does not map to any usage condition an agent could act on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.