Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SolidworksMCP-python

SolidworksMCP-python

by andrewbartels1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Save to Template Library

save_to_template_library
DestructiveIdempotent

Add a template to a shared, categorized library, copying it into the library and replacing any entry with the same name.

Instructions

Add a template to a shared, categorised template library.

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. Changes: once available, copies the template into the library, replacing an entry with the same name. Returns: once available, the library entry 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": "save_to_template_library"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
input_dataYesA mapping with the `template_name` and the template's path.

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: +"A mapping with the `template_name` and the template's path."
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses information the annotations cannot convey: the tool is unimplemented and every call returns error_type 'not_supported', which directly changes agent behavior. It also explains the replacement semantics ('replacing an entry with the same name'), which is consistent with the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations rather than contradicting them. It could go one step further by stating what happens to the replaced entry's content or whether the source template is consumed.

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?

Front-loaded with the highest-value fact (unavailable, all calls error), then labelled 'Changes:' and 'Returns:' for scannability. Every sentence carries actionable information; nothing is padding.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not document return values in depth — and it still points to 'data'. For a destructive, idempotent write tool it covers availability status, side effects, and replacement behavior, which is everything an agent needs to decide whether to call it.

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 nested object already documents 'template_name' and the template's path, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself or what happens on name collisions at the parameter level. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a fully documented single parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Add a template to a shared, categorised template library' — which cleanly separates it from 'list_template_library' (read side) and 'create_template' (creation, not library filing). It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly to disambiguate, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The definition strongly implies usage — file an existing template into the shared library — and the 'Not available yet' notice effectively tells the agent not to call it at all. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over create_template or save_as, and no prerequisites or exclusions are named.

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