FreeCAD Tutor MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

partdesign_loft

Create a solid loft between two or more sketches using additive or subtractive PartDesign operations. Build or cut transitions between profiles with undo support.

Instructions

Loft between two or more Sketches (AdditiveLoft or SubtractiveLoft) (undoable).

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": {
      "profile_names": "<profile_names>"
    },
    "name": "partdesign_loft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`ruled`	No
`closed`	No
`doc_name`	No
`subtractive`	No
`profile_names`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation is undoable and that it produces an additive or subtractive feature, which is useful context, but it does not explain what geometry is created or how existing material is affected.

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 compact sentence with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of omitting needed detail, but nothing written is wasted.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With six parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output explanation needed (an output schema exists), the description should carry more weight. It leaves the semantics of ruled, closed, and the naming parameters undocumented, which is inadequate for a multi-parameter modeling operation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails to. It only clarifies that profile_names takes two or more sketches and hints at the subtractive flag; ruled, closed, name, and doc_name are left entirely unexplained.

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: lofting between two or more sketches, and names the resulting feature types (AdditiveLoft/SubtractiveLoft). This distinguishes it from siblings like sweep or revolution by naming the operation, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

The phrase 'between two or more Sketches' implies a minimum input condition, but there is no guidance on when to choose loft over sweep, revolution, or groove, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

Deploy Server