Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SolidworksMCP-python

SolidworksMCP-python

by andrewbartels1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Check Drawing Compliance

check_drawing_compliance
Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks a drawing's title block and sheet format against ISO, ANSI, or DIN standards to identify compliance issues.

Instructions

Check a drawing's title block and sheet format against a drafting standard (ISO, ANSI or DIN).

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. For the same check on the active drawing, check_drawing_standards is also not available yet. Read-only. Returns: once available, the compliance 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": "check_drawing_compliance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
input_dataYesThe drawing and standard. `drawing_path` is required; `standard` defaults to "ISO", and `check_title_block` and `check_sheet_format` 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 and standard. `drawing_path` is required;\n`standard` defaults to \"ISO\", and `check_title_block` and\n`check_sheet_format` default to on."
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the decisive behavior: the tool is unimplemented and returns `error_type: "not_supported"`, plus that findings would appear under `data` once available. It slightly duplicates the 'Read-only' claim already carried by annotations rather than adding more, which keeps this just short of top marks.

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?

The unavailability warning is front-loaded right after the purpose sentence, which is the correct ordering. The text is short and every sentence carries information, though the mid-sentence line breaks and backticks make it slightly less scannable than it could be.

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?

For a single-parameter, nested-schema tool with an output schema, the definition covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what it takes, and — critically — that it currently always fails. The return shape is deferred to the output schema, as appropriate.

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% and the nested object documents `drawing_path`, `standard`, and both boolean toggles, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces the standard options (ISO, ANSI, DIN) but says nothing about the `standards_to_check` alias or how it interacts with `standard`, adding little beyond the schema.

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 description uses a specific verb and resource ('Check a drawing's title block and sheet format against a drafting standard') and scopes it to ISO/ANSI/DIN. It also separates itself from the sibling `check_drawing_standards` by noting that sibling operates on the active drawing, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

It gives the strongest possible usage guidance — 'not available yet: no adapter implements it, so every call returns an error' — which tells the agent not to call it at all. It also names the alternative (`check_drawing_standards`) and discloses that the alternative is likewise unavailable, leaving no wrong inference to make.

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