Lists features from a SOLIDWORKS model via the native engine and returns verified measurements in mm, degrees, and kg with error evidence for inspection.
List features 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 closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: geometry units (mm, degrees, kg) and the fact that results include verification/error evidence. It does not disclose whether suppressed features are included or how the evidence is surfaced, so it is helpful but incomplete.
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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. But the middle sentence about the "independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" is filler that consumes space without helping tool selection, and the final sentence is compressed to the point of ambiguity.
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 and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn what a returned feature record contains — names, IDs, suppression state, tree order. It instead gestures vaguely at "verified measurements and error evidence" without describing the payload, leaving a real gap for a listing tool whose output drives downstream calls like suppress_feature or delete_feature.
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 and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description misleads about inputs.
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 features" gives a clear verb and resource, so the basic action is identifiable. However, it never says which document/scope the features come from, and with many sibling list_* tools (list_bodies, list_faces, list_edges, list_dimensions, list_equations) it offers no differentiation. "Through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" is branding, not a scope statement.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_dimensions or list_bodies. "Inspect verified measurements and error evidence" implies a follow-up workflow but does not state the condition that selects this tool over its siblings, so the agent must guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.