Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SolidworksMCP-python

SolidworksMCP-python

by andrewbartels1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Create Detail View

create_detail_view

Creates a magnified detail view of a circular drawing area by defining its center, radius, scale, label, and placement.

Instructions

Magnify a circular area of a drawing view as a detail view.

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. Use SolidWorks directly (Insert > Drawing View > Detail). Changes: once available, adds a detail view. Returns: once available, the view 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": "create_detail_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
input_dataYesThe detail. `center_x`, `center_y`, `radius`, `view_position_x` and `view_position_y` are required; `scale` and `label` have defaults.

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 detail. `center_x`, `center_y`, `radius`,\n`view_position_x` and `view_position_y` are required; `scale` and\n`label` have defaults."
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description goes well beyond what the annotations provide: it discloses a guaranteed failure mode with the exact `error_type: "not_supported"`, states the feature is planned for a future release, and explains the intended post-call effect and return location once implemented. However, because the call can never succeed, it says nothing about authorization, preconditions on the target document, or how the detail circle is validated against the parent view — the operational details an agent would need once it does work. Strong disclosure of status, thinner disclosure of real behavior.

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, which is the single most important thing to surface. The trailing 'Changes: ... Returns: ...' sentences are hedged with 'once available' and largely restate information already carried by the annotations and the output schema, so there is minor waste but no confusion.

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?

For a tool that cannot be invoked successfully, the definition covers everything an agent needs: it declares the outage, the error shape, the manual workaround, and the future return location, and an output schema exists so return values need no prose. What is missing is the sibling relationship — many adjacent view-creation tools (create_section_view, create_drawing_view, add_drawing_view) exist and the description never says whether those are viable substitutes while this one is unimplemented.

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 per-property descriptions for center_x, center_y, radius, view_position_x, view_position_y, scale and label, so the baseline is 3. The prose adds nothing about parameter meaning, units, or coordinate frames beyond the schema, and since the tool always errors, parameters are effectively moot.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Magnify ... as a detail view') and a specific resource (a circular area of a drawing view), so an agent knows exactly what operation is being wrapped. It also immediately qualifies that the operation is unavailable, which removes any ambiguity about what a call will actually do.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use it ('Not available yet: no adapter implements it, so every call returns an error') and names the alternative ('Use SolidWorks directly (Insert > Drawing View > Detail)'). That is the strongest possible routing guidance: don't call this, do that instead.

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