Read the material assigned to the active SolidWorks part, optionally for a specific configuration, to inspect part properties without modifying the model.
Read the material assigned to the active part.
Read-only. Parts only (wrong_document_type otherwise).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input_data | No | ``configuration``; the active one when omitted. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is read-only and restricted to parts, but it does not cover other behavioral details such as active-document requirements or error behavior beyond wrong_document_type.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no wasted text. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the read-only and parts-only constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, the input schema is fully documented, and an output schema exists. The description covers the key behavioral constraints, though it could say slightly more about the active-part requirement or configuration handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single optional configuration parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: reading the material assigned to the active part. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as get_material_properties or list_available_materials.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear usage context: it operates on the active part and is parts-only, with wrong_document_type otherwise. It does not name alternatives or explain when to prefer this over related material tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.