Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SolidworksMCP-python

SolidworksMCP-python

by andrewbartels1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

execute_workflow

Run a sequence of automated steps for SolidWorks design tasks, with support for parallel execution and customizable error handling.

Instructions

Handle execute workflow.

This tool executes a series of automated steps in sequence, with support for parallel execution and error handling.

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": "execute_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
input_dataYesThe input data value.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions parallel execution and error handling support, which hints at behavior, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or limitations. Minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short but the first sentence 'Handle execute workflow' is redundant and adds no value. The second sentence is useful. Overall, it is concise but could be improved by removing the first sentence.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having an output schema (indicated by context), the description does not explain return values or how to effectively use the tool. For a complex tool with nested parameters and multiple execution modes, more detail is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description does not add additional meaning to any parameter beyond what is in the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 states it executes a series of automated steps in sequence, which clearly identifies the verb and resource. Among siblings which are mostly specific CAD operations, this tool stands out as a generic workflow executor, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description lacks any contextual usage instructions.

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