inventor-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_hole

Adds a native drilled, tapped ISO metric, or counterbored hole to an Inventor part using coordinates or face-edge dimensions; fails if no material is removed.

Instructions

Add a native hole feature to the active part (drilled, tapped ISO metric 6H, counterbored). Fails — instead of leaving an empty feature — if no material was removed. Placed one of three ways:

point + direction: absolute model coordinates, e.g. point=[30,0,12], direction=[0,0,-1] (the way the drill travels). Safest: no sketch axes involved.
linear: dimensioned from two edges of a face, associative — preferred for fastener holes: {"face_axis": "Z", "face_value": 20, "ref1_axis": "X", "ref1_value": 0, "dist1": 10, "ref2_axis": "Y", "ref2_value": 0, "dist2": 15}.
x, y: on the XY plane, drilling into +Z.

Args: diameter: mm (thread nominal if tapped, e.g. 5 for M5). depth: mm; 0 = through all. tapped: Thread it. pitch: mm; 0 = standard coarse. cbore_diameter, cbore_depth: Counterbore seat (with linear), e.g. 10 and 5.5 for M5.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`x`	No
`y`	No
`depth`	No
`pitch`	No
`point`	No
`linear`	No
`tapped`	No
`diameter`	No
`instance`	No	Which connected Inventor to use (list_instances). Leave empty when only one is connected.
`direction`	No
`cbore_depth`	No
`cbore_diameter`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses meaningful behavior: it adds to the active part, fails rather than leaving an empty feature when no material is removed, and clarifies coordinate and associativity semantics for each placement mode. These details go well beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core action and failure behavior, then organizes placement modes and arguments into scannable sections. It is long but every section adds needed guidance for a 12-parameter modeling operation.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a complex mutation tool with no annotations, low schema description coverage, and 12 parameters, the description supplies the missing operational context: active-part scope, failure behavior, placement alternatives, and argument meaning. Output semantics need not be repeated because an output schema exists.

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 description coverage is only 8%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains diameter, depth, tapped, pitch, counterbore fields, x/y, point/direction, and the linear object with an example. Only instance is omitted from the description, and that parameter already has schema-level explanation.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: adds a native hole feature to the active part, including drilled, tapped, and counterbored variants. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related modeling siblings such as sheet_metal_cut or extrude.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides clear contextual guidance for choosing among three placement modes, including 'Safest' for point+direction and 'preferred for fastener holes' for linear placement. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for non-hole material removal.

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

Deploy Server