FreeCAD MCP

get_rpc_status

Check RPC and FreeCAD GUI-dispatch health to diagnose stuck or timed-out operations and determine whether the addon or server needs updating.

Instructions

Get RPC and FreeCAD GUI-dispatch health.

This tool does not use FreeCAD's GUI thread, so it remains available after
a GUI operation times out. A ``stuck`` state identifies the operation that
is still running and indicates that FreeCAD may need to be restarted.
``version_check`` is "ok" or says whether the addon or the server needs
updating.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_rpc_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does real work: it discloses the non-GUI-thread execution model, the survival-after-timeout property, and the meaning of the 'stuck' state (an operation still running, restart may be needed). It does not explicitly confirm the call is side-effect free or describe the response beyond two fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose, then the availability guarantee, then the two return-state semantics. Every sentence adds information an agent would otherwise lack; none is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: execution model, availability, and the meaning of key status values. It leaves the rest of the response shape undocumented, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get RPC and FreeCAD GUI-dispatch health.' It is clearly a diagnostic/status tool, distinguishable from action siblings like create_object or run_fem_analysis. It stops short of naming the nearest alternatives (get_async_status, get_document_status), so an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a concrete usage condition: 'This tool does not use FreeCAD's GUI thread, so it remains available after a GUI operation times out.' That tells an agent exactly when to reach for it. It never names an alternative tool or states when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server