Executes a local Python script in headless FreeCAD with awcad available, enabling automated 3D-printable part modeling and export workflows.
Executa um arquivo .py local (ex.: examples/suporte_seringas_20ml.py) no FreeCAD headless, com awcad disponível.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| timeout_s | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that execution is headless and that `awcad` is importable, but says nothing about arbitrary code execution side effects, whether documents are saved or left in memory, what happens on timeout (the 180s default), or how errors surface. For a code-execution tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial 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 tight sentence with the key constraint (local .py file) front-loaded, no filler. Brevity is achieved, though at the cost of the transparency gaps noted above rather than through disciplined selection.
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, but for an execution tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description should cover side effects, timeout semantics, and failure behavior — none of which appear. An agent could call it on the wrong kind of file or be surprised by state changes.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that `path` points to a local .py file and shows an example path format, which adds real meaning; however, `timeout_s` is never mentioned in the description or schema, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb ('Executa') and resource ('arquivo .py local') plus the execution context (FreeCAD headless, with `awcad` available), which lets an agent tell it apart from freecad_run (likely inline code) and freecad_status. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling freecad_run, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
The phrase 'arquivo .py local' implies you use this when you already have a script on disk, and the file example gives a concrete hint. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative for the inline-code case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.