Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SolidworksMCP-python

SolidworksMCP-python

by andrewbartels1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Manage Design Table

manage_design_table

Create, read, or update a SolidWorks design table (Excel sheet) that drives model configurations; currently unavailable and returns not_supported until implemented.

Instructions

Create, read or update a design table (an Excel sheet that drives a model's configurations).

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. To list a model's configurations today, use list_configurations. Changes: once available, inserts or edits the design table and its configurations. Returns: once available, the table's state 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": "manage_design_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
input_dataYesThe design table. Nothing is required: give `model_path`, `operation` and `excel_file`; `parameters`, `configurations` and the auto-update switches 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 design table. Nothing is required: give `model_path`,\n`operation` and `excel_file`; `parameters`, `configurations` and the\nauto-update switches have defaults."
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the guaranteed failure mode and exact `error_type: "not_supported"`, which annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) do not convey at all. It also states the mutation effect (inserts or edits the table and its configurations) and where the result surfaces under `data`, with no contradiction of the declared non-destructive hint.

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 purpose, then the availability caveat and the alternative — the ordering is correct for an agent deciding whether to call it. Minor waste in the repeated "once available" framing and a return-value sentence that duplicates the existing output schema.

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?

Given a mutation tool with an output schema, full annotation coverage and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the only missing pieces: availability status, failure signature, mutation semantics and a redirect. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it or avoid calling it is absent.

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% and the single top-level `input_data` object documents every nested field, including the note that `model_path`, `operation` and `excel_file` are the practical inputs. The description adds no field-level meaning of its own, so the schema carries the load and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verbs and resource ("Create, read or update a design table") and parenthetically defines the resource ("an Excel sheet that drives a model's configurations"), which an agent could not infer from the name alone. It also distinguishes the read path from the sibling `list_configurations`, so the tool is separable without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit use-today rule: the tool is unavailable, every call errors with `not_supported`, and configuration listing should go to `list_configurations` instead. It does not explain when to choose among the create/update/import variants, but the availability constraint is the dominant routing decision and it is stated unambiguously.

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