Run a read-only health scan of the active saved SOLIDWORKS model to report errors, warnings, and unchecked scopes, with optional deep checks. Never repairs geometry or features.
Read-only health scan of the exact active saved model. Reports errors, warnings and unchecked scopes. Deep checks are optional; never repairs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deep | No | ||
| result_view | No | ||
| document_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description's job is to add context; 'never repairs' reinforces that findings are informational only, and 'unchecked scopes' discloses that coverage may be incomplete, which an agent cannot infer from annotations. It still does not say whether the model must be open/active or what happens if the path is not the active document.
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 clauses, each front-loaded with the most important fact first: read-only, what is reported, then the optional/never-repairs caveat. No filler.
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, the description usefully sketches the returned categories, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 3-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, the omission of document_path semantics and the result_view toggle leaves real gaps an agent would need to guess at.
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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains only that deep checks are optional (loosely mapping to the 'deep' flag). Neither document_path's role ('exact active saved model' hints at it but does not define it) nor result_view's summary/full enum is addressed.
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: a 'read-only health scan' of 'the exact active saved model', and it names what the scan reports (errors, warnings, unchecked scopes). It is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings, though it never names the closest alternative (pro_validate_design) to sharpen the boundary.
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?
'Deep checks are optional' and 'never repairs' imply lightweight versus thorough usage, and 'exact active saved model' scopes the target. There is no explicit when-to-use versus pro_validate_design or check_interference, and no stated preconditions such as the document needing to be saved and active.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.