Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CAD-CAE-Agent SolidWorks MCP Server

CAD-CAE-Agent SolidWorks MCP Server

by caoguanqiu1-alt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

manage_file_properties

Manage SolidWorks file metadata and lifecycle tasks: read, update, copy, move, rename, or delete properties via source and target paths.

Instructions

Read, update, copy, move, rename, or delete file-related properties.

Uses the requested operation and file paths to manage SolidWorks file metadata or related file lifecycle tasks through the active adapter.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "input_data": "<input_data>"
    },
    "name": "manage_file_properties"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
input_dataYesThe input data value.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool can both read and mutate properties, implying destructive actions, but does not detail reversibility, permissions, or side effects. It also references an 'active adapter' without explanation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads all key operations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema and nested parameters, the description does not explain usage scenarios, error conditions, or return behavior. For a multi-operation tool, more context would be beneficial.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only stating that the tool uses the requested operation and file paths.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reads, updates, copies, moves, renames, or deletes file-related properties. It specifies the resource (SolidWorks file properties) and lists multiple verbs, making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_file_properties or save_file.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools