Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FreeCAD Tutor MCP

FreeCAD Tutor MCP

by alex-r-t
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

inspect_object

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all properties, validity state, error details, and shape metadata for a FreeCAD object to diagnose model issues and verify geometry.

Instructions

Dump all properties, validity state, error description, and shape metadata for one object.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
doc_nameNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output includes validity state, error description, and shape metadata, which is useful context beyond annotations, but says nothing about size or cost of the dump.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence enumerating the returned fields with no filler. Efficient, though it could have used one more clause for parameter meaning at the same cost.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, and annotations cover safety. However, with zero schema description coverage, the ambiguous "name" vs. "doc_name" relationship is left unexplained, which is a real gap for a two-parameter tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, yet it never explains what "name" refers to (object vs. document handle) or what the optional "doc_name" scope does. It only implies the tool targets one object rather than a whole document.

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 ("Dump") and resource (one object's properties, validity state, error description, shape metadata). It's clear what the tool returns, though it doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like analyze_shape or get_document_graph.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as analyze_shape for geometry inspection. The agent must infer from the name that this is a per-object diagnostic dump.

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