Detects whether the SOLIDWORKS Visualize add-in API (2025+) is available and probes it, optionally loading the registered add-in for the current session if missing.
Detect SOLIDWORKS Visualize add-in API (2025+). Explicit load_if_missing=true loads the registered Visualize add-in for this session, then probes it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| load_if_missing | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the meaningful fact that the tool has a side effect when load_if_missing=true (loading the registered add-in for the session), which goes beyond annotations, but doesn't cover version-mismatch handling or what the probe returns.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the version constraint and purpose. No wasted words, though the second sentence is slightly terse and ambiguous ('explicit load_if_missing=true').
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 one-boolean probe tool with no output schema and no annotations explaining return values, the description covers purpose and the main parameter effect but leaves the result shape (found/not found, version info) and error behavior unstated.
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% for the single boolean parameter, so the description carries the burden; it does explain that true loads the add-in for this session and that the default is implicit 'explicit'. That compensates reasonably, but it doesn't clarify what happens when the add-in is absent or unregistered.
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?
Description states a specific verb and resource: detect the SOLIDWORKS Visualize add-in API (2025+) and probe it. It distinguishes this status/probe tool from siblings like pro_visualize_render or pro_visualize_export, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
It gives one conditional usage rule — set load_if_missing=true to load the add-in for this session — but offers no guidance on when to prefer this over get_status or pro_capabilities, nor any when-not-to-use condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.