Calculates mass properties for a SolidWorks model, with options for units, hidden components, and reference coordinate system in CAD/CAE workflows.
Backward-compatible alias for calculate_mass_properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input_data | No | The input data value. Defaults to None. |
| 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 should disclose behavior. It merely indicates it is an alias, but does not describe the actual behavior of mass property calculation, such as read-only nature, permissions, or side effects. The agent cannot infer any behavioral traits.
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 very concise (one sentence), which is efficient but lacks essential information. It is not overly verbose, but could be expanded to cover important details without becoming bloated.
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 context of many sibling tools and a non-trivial input schema, the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain what mass properties are, how the tool differs from calculate_mass_properties, or any other contextual information needed for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear defaults and descriptions for the single parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 only states it is a backward-compatible alias for calculate_mass_properties, but does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., calculate mass properties of a model). This leaves the purpose vague and reliant on the user knowing the other tool.
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 get_mass_properties versus calculate_mass_properties or any other tool. The alias nature implies the other tool is preferred, but this is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.