Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SolidworksMCP-python

SolidworksMCP-python

by andrewbartels1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Analyze Drawing Dimensions

analyze_drawing_dimensions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks a drawing's dimensions for precision consistency, tolerance formatting, and completeness; currently unavailable and returns not_supported until implemented.

Instructions

Check a drawing's dimensions for consistent precision, tolerance formatting and completeness.

Not available yet: no adapter implements it, so every call returns an error with error_type: "not_supported". It is planned for a future release. To bring the model's dimensions into a drawing, use insert_model_dimensions. Read-only. Returns: once available, the dimension findings under data.

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": "analyze_drawing_dimensions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
input_dataYesThe drawing to check. `drawing_path` is required; the `check_precision`, `check_tolerances` and `check_completeness` switches default to on.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / input_data / description
      Previous value: -"The input data value."New value: +"The drawing to check. `drawing_path` is required; the\n`check_precision`, `check_tolerances` and `check_completeness`\nswitches default to on."
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the decisive behavioral fact not present in any structured field: the tool is unimplemented and will always fail with a specific error type. That disclosure prevents wasted calls and is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences with no padding: purpose first, then the critical unavailability warning, then the alternative, then the return note. The most actionable information is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return values, and it still gives a pointer that findings appear under 'data' once available. For a nested single-parameter read-only tool, everything an agent needs to decide whether to call it is present.

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%, with each nested property (drawing_path, check_precision, check_tolerances, check_completeness) documented including defaults in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or interactions, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource (check a drawing's dimensions) and enumerates the exact aspects checked: precision consistency, tolerance formatting, and completeness. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_drawing_annotations or check_drawing_standards without requiring the schema to be opened.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description goes beyond typical guidance by explicitly stating the tool is not available yet and that every call returns error_type 'not_supported', which is the single most important routing signal an agent can get. It also names a concrete alternative, insert_model_dimensions, with the condition that selects it (bringing model dimensions into a drawing).

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