Insert a STEP file from the parts library into a CAD document as a named object, then optionally rotate or translate it.
Insert a STEP file from the parts library (see list_library) as object name, then optionally rotate/translate it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| material | No | ||
| position | No | ||
| library_path | Yes | ||
| rotation_deg | No | ||
| rotation_axis | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that insertion may be followed by rotation/translation, but says nothing about what happens on a name collision, whether the insert is atomic, or what document state is required for a mutation of this kind.
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 sentence with the action and scope front-loaded, followed by the optional secondary step. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.
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 7-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, the description is thin: it omits the role of `doc`, the meaning of `material`, collision handling, and coordinate conventions. Return values need not be described since an output schema exists, but the invocation-side gaps remain significant.
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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It covers `name`, `library_path` implicitly, and the rotation/position idea, but leaves `doc` and `material` undefined and gives no shape for `position`/`rotation_axis` or units for `rotation_deg`.
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 and resource: inserts a STEP file sourced from the parts library, names the resulting object via `name`, and points at list_library as the source of library paths. This reasonably distinguishes it from import_step (external file) and from transform, though it never says so explicitly.
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?
The parenthetical '(see list_library)' routes the agent to the tool that produces `library_path`, and 'optionally rotate/translate it' hints at doing orientation inline rather than calling transform afterward. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs import_step, and no stated prerequisites such as an open document.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.