Run saved SOLIDWORKS macros with optional parameters, target files, and repeat counts to automate CAD workflows and batch tasks.
Handle execute macro.
This tool runs a previously recorded or written macro with optional parameters and repeat functionality.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input_data | Yes | The input data value. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'runs' without disclosing side effects, security implications, or whether it can modify files. The schema includes pause and log options, but these are not explained in the description.
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?
The description is short (two sentences) and to the point, with no fluff. However, the first sentence 'Handle execute macro' is somewhat tautological.
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?
Given the complexity (many nested parameters, multiple macro-related siblings, and an output schema), the description is too bare. It does not mention the output, explain repeat behavior, or clarify parameter relationships.
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 schema already documents parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'optional parameters and repeat functionality,' which is insufficient given the nested structure.
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?
The description clearly states the tool runs a previously recorded or written macro with optional parameters and repeat functionality. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like batch_execute_macros or analyze_macro.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as batch_execute_macros or analyze_macro. The description merely implies execution but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.