Skip to main content
Glama
SolidworksMCP-python

SolidworksMCP-python

List Configurations

list_configurations
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists configuration names for an open part or assembly, helping you identify available design variants and see which one is active.

Instructions

List the names of the active model's configurations.

Use it to see which configurations a part or assembly has. Needs: an open part or assembly. Read-only. Returns: configurations (names) and count. get_model_info says which one is active.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_configurations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so "Read-only" adds nothing new. The genuinely additive detail is the prerequisite of an open part or assembly, which hints at a failure mode; the return description duplicates what the output schema already provides.

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, front-loaded, and broken into scannable signals (use, requirement, safety, return). A few lines restate structured data the agent already has from annotations and the output schema, which is minor waste but not noise.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, return shape, and the adjacent tool to consult for the active configuration. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource, "List the names of the active model's configurations," and scopes it to the active model. That scope plus the pointer to `get_model_info` makes it distinguishable from the other list_* siblings without opening any schema.

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?

"Use it to see which configurations a part or assembly has" gives a clear use case, and "Needs: an open part or assembly" states the precondition. It also routes the agent to `get_model_info` for the active-configuration question, though it stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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