Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SolidworksMCP-python

SolidworksMCP-python

by andrewbartels1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_annotation

Add text annotations, balloons, or surface symbols to SolidWorks drawings with customizable font size, leader attachment, and title-block metadata fields.

Instructions

Add an annotation such as a note, balloon, or surface symbol.

Places annotation text in a drawing with optional font size, leader attachment, and title-block style metadata fields.

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": {
      "input_data": "<input_data>"
    },
    "name": "add_annotation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
input_dataYesThe input data value.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not mention side effects, such as modifying the drawing, or requirements like having an open drawing. The phrase 'places annotation text in a drawing' implies a drawing context but is not explicit.

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?

Two sentences efficiently front-load the purpose with examples. No redundant information.

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?

Given the nested input object with 12 parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It does not explain the nested structure or relationship between positional parameters, though the schema fills in details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a high-level grouping (font size, leader, title-block fields) but no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states it adds annotations like notes, balloons, or surface symbols, and mentions optional fields. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_note, which may cause ambiguity for an agent.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_note or add_dimension. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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