Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FreeCAD Tutor MCP

FreeCAD Tutor MCP

by alex-r-t
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_selection

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve objects and sub-elements (such as Face1 or Edge2) currently selected in FreeCAD to inspect the active selection and explain it to the user.

Instructions

Get objects and sub-elements (Face1, Edge2, etc.) currently selected by the user in FreeCAD.

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_selection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds two useful behavioral details beyond that: the data reflects the user's live UI selection, and it includes sub-element references like Face1/Edge2 rather than only top-level objects. It does not state the result when nothing is selected.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical examples earning their place by clarifying output granularity. No redundant restatement of annotations.

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-argument read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient — the agent knows what it retrieves and at what granularity. The only gap is behavior on an empty selection and, mildly, how it relates to set_selection.

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. The schema is an empty object with 100% coverage and adds no conflicting expectations.

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?

Specific verb ("Get") plus a precise resource ("objects and sub-elements ... currently selected by the user") and concrete examples of sub-element naming (Face1, Edge2). It does not name the complementary sibling set_selection, so the agent must infer the read/write split from names alone.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the word "currently selected" — a read of live UI state. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives such as set_selection or get_view, and no note about what to do when the selection is empty.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools