Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SolidworksMCP-python

SolidworksMCP-python

by andrewbartels1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Compare Drawing Files

compare_drawing_versions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two saved drawing files to check if they are byte-identical and how their sizes differ, showing whether a drawing changed between versions without opening SolidWorks.

Instructions

Compare two drawing files on disk: whether they are byte-identical, and how their sizes differ.

Use it to tell whether a drawing changed between two saved versions. It does not open SolidWorks, so it can't say which views, dimensions or notes differ. Identical files mean nothing changed, but different files may not: SolidWorks writes a different file each time it saves, even with no change. Needs: both files on disk. Read-only. Returns: comparison with file_1 and file_2 (size, modified time, SHA-256), identical and size_delta_bytes.

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": "compare_drawing_versions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
input_dataYesBoth full paths, `drawing_version_1` and `drawing_version_2`; both are required.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / input_data / description
      Previous value: -"The input data value."New value: +"Both full paths, `drawing_version_1` and\n`drawing_version_2`; both are required."
    • addedInput schema / properties / input_data / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "drawing_version_1": {
+    "description": "Full path to the first drawing file",
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "drawing_version_2": {
+    "description": "Full path to the second drawing file",
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / input_data / required
      Added value: +[
+  "drawing_version_1",
+  "drawing_version_2"
+]
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotency, yet the description adds real behavioral context: it does not launch SolidWorks, both files must exist on disk as a precondition, and a differing hash is not proof of a design change because SolidWorks rewrites the file on every save. That last caveat is the kind of trait no annotation could 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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then cleanly segmented with 'Needs:', 'Read-only.' and 'Returns:' labels, so an agent can scan for preconditions. The returns sentence partially restates an existing output schema, which is the only sentence not fully earning its place.

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 two-path comparison with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: purpose, scope limits, precondition that both files be on disk, the false-positive caveat, and a pointer to the `comparison` payload. No significant call-decision information is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both path parameters are already documented. The description adds an operational constraint the schema cannot express — that both files must actually exist on disk — which is meaningful pre-call knowledge, though it adds no syntax or path-format detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Compare two drawing files on disk') and immediately bounds the scope: byte-identity plus size difference. The parenthetical limit ('does not open SolidWorks') distinguishes it from the analyze_drawing_* and check_drawing_* siblings without needing their names.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('tell whether a drawing changed between two saved versions') and when-not-to-use ('can't say which views, dimensions or notes differ'), plus the false-positive caveat that different files do not prove a change. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the semantic-diff case, leaving the agent to infer compare_templates or the analyze_* family.

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