Lists all indexed methods and properties for a SolidWorks COM interface, so you can inspect available API members before calling them.
List every indexed member (methods + properties) of a COM interface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input_data | No |
| 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 are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only index lookup via 'List', but says nothing about preconditions (does an index file need to exist?), what happens when the interface name is unknown, or how the 'year'/'index_file' overrides change resolution. For a zero-annotation tool this is a significant gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the enumeration scope is stated immediately.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the one-line purpose is accurate. However, with no annotations, an opaque top-level wrapper parameter, and no sibling routing, the definition is only minimally sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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 reported at 0%, and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. The top-level 'input_data' wrapper is entirely opaque in both schema and description, so the agent gets no help understanding that the interface name must be nested inside it (the nested fields themselves do carry brief descriptions, which softens but does not fix the gap).
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List every indexed member (methods + properties) of a COM interface.' The scope (interface-level enumeration, not a single member) distinguishes it implicitly from member-level siblings like lookup_api_method and find_related_api_members, though it never names them.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing against the obvious alternatives (lookup_api_method, find_related_api_members, search_solidworks_api_help). The agent must infer from the tool name alone when interface-level enumeration is preferred over member lookup or help search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.