Imports a STEP file by absolute path and creates a named object in the active FreeCAD document for part inspection and downstream CAD workflows.
Import a STEP file (absolute path) as a new object name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| material | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and falls short: it doesn't say what happens if an object named `name` already exists (overwrite or error), whether the target `doc` must be open/active, how units or materials are applied, or what failure modes exist for a bad path.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key constraint (absolute path) is placed early. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than a structural flaw.
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?
The presence of an output schema relieves the description of return-value detail, but for a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much (doc target, material handling, name collision behavior) undocumented.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it only clarifies `path` (absolute) and `name` (the new object). The required `doc` parameter and the optional `material` parameter are completely unexplained in both schema and 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?
States a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('STEP file'), plus the resulting side effect ('as a new object `name`'). It's clear what the tool does, but it offers no explicit contrast with related siblings such as insert_library_part or export.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. insert_library_part, run_script, new_document), no prerequisites, no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.