Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SolidworksMCP-python

SolidworksMCP-python

by andrewbartels1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

save_as

Save the current SolidWorks model to a new location or file format. Supports export to STEP, IGES, and other formats.

Instructions

Save the current model to a new location or format.

Saves the currently active SolidWorks document with a new filename, location, or file format. Supports multiple export formats for interoperability with other CAD systems and manufacturing workflows.

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": "save_as"
  }
}

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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'save' (mutating) and 'supports multiple export formats' but omits details on whether the original document remains open, permission requirements, or error handling. Overwrite behavior is only in schema, not described.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with key action, no redundancy. Efficiently conveys core purpose.

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?

Output schema exists (assumed covers return values), but description lacks differentiation from similar siblings (save_file), prerequisites, and postconditions. Adequate for a save operation with moderate complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context ('interoperability') but does not elaborate on format_type values or default behavior beyond what schema provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'Save' and resource 'current model' with specific actions: new filename, location, or file format. This distinguishes it from siblings like save_file (overwrite) and export_* (specific format exports).

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 on when to use save_as vs siblings like save_file or export_step. The description implies usage for new location/format but lacks explicit when-not and alternatives.

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