Retrieve the complete feature list from a Part Studio by supplying document, workspace, and element IDs. Use this to inspect or verify the parametric feature history.
Get all features from a Part Studio
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| elementId | Yes | Part Studio element ID | |
| documentId | Yes | Document ID | |
| 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly mention safety, side effects, or response characteristics. This is a significant gap given the absence of annotations.
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 concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the action. However, it is under-specified for a tool with no output schema, though the conciseness itself is efficient.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values and any limitations. It only states the action, leaving out response details, error conditions, and the exact scope of 'features'. This is incomplete for an agent to call correctly.
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 100%, with each parameter documented (elementId, documentId, workspaceId). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage.
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 'Get all features from a Part Studio', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_parts and get_assembly_features by targeting features within a Part Studio, though it does not elaborate on what constitutes a feature.
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?
No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_elements or get_parts. The description gives no context on selection criteria, exclusions, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.