Generates VBA code to insert components into a SOLIDWORKS assembly, using component path, insertion coordinates, rotation, and operation type for automation scripts.
Generate VBA code for assembly component insertion.
| 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?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Generate VBA code' without specifying if the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. It does not clarify that it generates code without modifying files.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates the core functionality.
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 (nested input object) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally acceptable. It does not elaborate on the returned VBA code format but relies on the output schema for details. The description could be slightly richer for a tool with many siblings.
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%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The input parameters are well-documented in the schema itself, so the description is adequate but does not enhance understanding.
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 'Generate VBA code for assembly component insertion.' It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('VBA code for assembly component insertion'), distinctly differentiating it from sibling tools like 'generate_vba_extrusion' or 'generate_vba_assembly_mates'.
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 versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. Given many similar 'generate_vba_*' siblings, explicit guidance is lacking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.