Retrieve all elements in an Onshape workspace, including Part Studios and Assemblies. Optionally filter by element type to locate specific CAD components.
Get all elements (Part Studios, Assemblies, etc.) in a workspace
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentId | Yes | Document ID | |
| elementType | No | Optional filter by element type (e.g., 'PARTSTUDIO', 'ASSEMBLY') | |
| workspaceId | Yes | Workspace ID |
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 of disclosing behavior. It only says it returns elements and does not mention whether the response is paginated, how the elementType filter behaves, whether unsupported types are ignored or error, what fields each element contains, or how the result relates to element IDs used by other tools.
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?
The description is a single, readable sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. It is concise, though it slightly underspecifies behavior; still, no filler or repetition exists.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the tool is moderately complex: it may return heterogeneous element types and supports an optional filter. The description does not explain the return structure, pagination, or relationship between element types and the optional filter, leaving an agent to guess at important invocation and interpretation details.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a little context by naming example element types and clarifying that elementType is an optional filter, which aligns with the schema's wording but does not add significant new meaning beyond it.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all elements') within a workspace, listing examples like Part Studios and Assemblies. However, it does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as find_part_studios or get_parts, which could overlap in an agent's decision-making.
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 description implies this is the tool for fetching broad element lists from a workspace, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over find_part_studios, get_features, or get_assembly. No alternatives are named and no exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.