Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FreeCAD Tutor MCP

FreeCAD Tutor MCP

by alex-r-t
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_appearance

Adjust an object's visibility, transparency, or shape color in FreeCAD's View tab, with undo support for safe appearance changes.

Instructions

Set object Visibility, Transparency (0-100), or ShapeColor [r, g, b] in the View tab (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": {
      "object_name": "<object_name>"
    },
    "name": "set_appearance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
colorNo
visibleNo
doc_nameNo
object_nameYes
transparencyNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation; the description adds the useful 'undoable' note, which tells the agent the change is reversible. It does not say what happens to unspecified properties (are they left alone or reset?) or how null parameters are treated, which matters for a mutation tool.

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 dense sentence with the object scope, the affected properties, format/range hints and the undo note, all front-loaded. Nothing is wasted.

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 need no explanation, and the undo note covers reversibility. However, a five-parameter mutation tool at 0% schema coverage still leaves doc_name scoping and the semantics of null versus omitted fields unaddressed.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must carry the load, and it does for the three meaningful parameters: color format is given as [r, g, b] and transparency as a 0-100 range, neither of which the schema states. object_name and doc_name remain unexplained, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

A specific verb (Set) applied to named properties (Visibility, Transparency, ShapeColor) on an object, with the 'View tab' scope locating it in the UI. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from set_property or set_view, which are the closest siblings.

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 statement of when to use this versus set_property or set_view, no prerequisites, and no note about whether visibility/transparency/color can be combined in one call. The 'or' hints at one-at-a-time use but that is left to inference.

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