inventor-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_assembly_cut

Creates an assembly-level cut through placed components for holes drilled after assembly, leaving part files unchanged and returning the volume removed per component.

Instructions

Cut through placed components at assembly level, for a hole drilled after assembly: the cut lives in this assembly and the part files stay as they are. To change the part itself for every use, cut it in the part (extrude, sheet_metal_cut). Returns the volume removed from each component; a cut that removes nothing is taken back and reported as an error.

Args: axis: World direction of the cut: "x", "y" or "z". circles: [[x, y, z, diameter], ...] in world mm. The coordinate along axis is ignored. rectangles: Lists of 4 corners, [[[x,y,z], [x,y,z], [x,y,z], [x,y,z]], ...], in world mm. at: Where the sketch plane sits along axis, in mm. Matters when distance is set. distance: Depth in mm from that plane; 0 = through everything. direction: "symmetric" (both ways), "positive" (+axis) or "negative" (-axis). participants: Comma-separated names, paths or patterns of the only components to cut, e.g. "PANEL:1,DOOR"; empty = all that the shape meets.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "add_assembly_cut"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`at`	No
`axis`	No		z
`circles`	No
`distance`	No
`instance`	No	Which connected Inventor to use (list_instances). Leave empty when only one is connected.
`direction`	No		symmetric
`rectangles`	No
`participants`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.1Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the cut lives in the assembly, that source part files are unchanged, that removed volume is returned per component, and that a no-op cut is rolled back and reported as an error. It omits prerequisites such as needing an active assembly document, but the mutation semantics and rollback behavior are unusually well covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the core distinction from part-level cutting, followed by return/rollback behavior, then a clean Args block. For an 8-parameter geometric operation, every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is optional (the description adds it anyway). The parameter semantics are complete and the assembly-vs-part distinction is clear. Remaining gaps are minor: document-state prerequisites and how participants matching interacts with the shape's intersection are implied but not fully stated.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is only 13%, but the description compensates thoroughly, documenting 7 of 8 parameters with concrete formats (axis values, [x,y,z,diameter] circles, 4-corner rectangles, at/distance semantics, direction modes, and wildcard pattern syntax for participants). The one undocumented parameter, instance, is the only one with a schema description.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('cut through placed components at assembly level') and immediately distinguishes it from part-level cutting (extrude, sheet_metal_cut). An agent can tell what this does and when it differs from siblings without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the alternative operation and the condition that selects it: 'To change the part itself for every use, cut it in the part (extrude, sheet_metal_cut).' The scope rule (assembly-level hole drilled after assembly, part files untouched) is stated outright.

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

Deploy Server