Generates VBA code for complex SOLIDWORKS part modeling operations, automating parametric feature creation via MCP calls.
Generate VBA code for complex part modeling operations.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that it generates VBA code, omitting details about input format, output structure, side effects (e.g., file creation), or required permissions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices crucial details for brevity. It is front-loaded but not sufficiently informative, missing the opportunity to clarify scope or usage.
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 existence of many similar sibling tools and a flexible input schema (generic object), the description is incomplete. It lacks context about what constitutes 'complex part modeling operations,' how the input should be structured, and what the output schema contains, despite an output schema being present.
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 coverage is 100% (one parameter), satisfying the baseline. However, the parameter description is just 'The input data value,' which adds no meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on what the input should contain, so it adds marginal value beyond the schema.
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 states it generates VBA code for 'complex part modeling operations,' which is a clear verb-resource pair. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_vba_extrusion' or 'generate_vba_code,' which also generate VBA code for specific operations.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as other generate_vba_* tools or when specific operations like extrusions or revolves are needed. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.