Capture a native SOLIDWORKS view to a file so you can inspect verified measurements and error evidence.
Screenshot through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine. Public geometry units are mm, degrees and kg. Inspect verified measurements and error evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| view | No | iso | |
| zoom_mm | No | ||
| from_dir | No | ||
| overwrite | No | Explicitly permit replacing existing output. Default refuses an existing target. | |
| show_planes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating this writes to disk and can overwrite output, but the description never mentions file writing, target paths, or overwrite risk. The units sentence (mm/degrees/kg) is irrelevant noise for a screenshot, and the measurements/error-evidence sentence hints at behavior not described anywhere else without explaining it.
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, but two of them are boilerplate that does not serve a screenshot tool, and the actual operation is never front-loaded with what gets captured or saved. Length is fine; the content is misallocated.
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?
A six-parameter destructive write tool with 17% schema coverage and no output schema needs considerably more description than this. Nothing explains the output artifact, the meaning of view/from_dir/zoom_mm, or the side effects of writing to path.
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 only 17%, so the description must compensate for view, zoom_mm, from_dir, and show_planes, yet it explains none of them. The only faint link is the mm mention, which weakly touches zoom_mm; overwrite is documented in the schema, not the description.
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 verb ("Screenshot") and names an engine, but never says what is being captured (viewport, model, drawing), what file format is produced, or where it lands. It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling pro_capture_view, leaving the agent to guess which capture tool to pick.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus pro_capture_view, pro_preview_model, or pro_visualize_render, and no prerequisites (open document, active document) are stated. The closing sentence about "inspect verified measurements and error evidence" gives no actionable usage context for a screenshot operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.