Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SolidworksMCP-python

SolidworksMCP-python

by andrewbartels1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Check Drawing Standards

check_drawing_standards
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify the active drawing against a specified drafting standard and receive a compliance score to pinpoint violations.

Instructions

Check the active drawing against a drafting standard and score it.

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. SolidWorks Design Checker does this today. Read-only. Returns: once available, the 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_standards"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
input_dataYesA mapping with the `standard` to check against.

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: +"A mapping with the `standard` to check against."
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the single most important behavioral fact — that the tool is a stub that always fails with a specific error_type. It also states the planned availability and where findings would appear in the response, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Short and front-loaded: purpose first, then the unavailability warning, then return behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the SolidWorks Design Checker aside is of marginal use to an agent choosing a tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a not-yet-implemented tool with a rich schema and an output schema, the description covers everything needed to avoid mis-calling it and to know what a future response looks like. Only the accepted values for `standard` remain unexplained, which the schema also omits.

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 coverage is 100% and the single input_data.standard field is already documented in the schema. The description adds no information about which standard identifiers are accepted or what the mapping may contain, so it neither helps nor harms beyond the schema baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource (check the active drawing against a drafting standard) and adds the scoring outcome. It does not distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling check_drawing_compliance, leaving the agent to guess which one to prefer.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an unusually strong negative usage signal: the tool is not implemented, every call returns a not_supported error, and it is planned for a future release. The only gap is that it points to an external product (SolidWorks Design Checker) rather than naming a usable sibling alternative such as check_drawing_compliance.

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