Closes a FreeCAD document by name or the active one, freeing its objects and invalidating handles into it, then returns closed and invalidated handle counts.
Close a document by name (or 'active' for the currently active one). Frees its objects and invalidates any handles into the closed doc. Returns {closed, invalidated_handles}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | active |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses important side effects: it frees objects and invalidates handles, and it describes the return shape. It does not mention permissions or error cases, but the core destructive behavior is transparent.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by side effects and return shape. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter special value, side effects, and return shape. It does not mention whether closing without saving discards changes, which is a minor gap for a destructive operation.
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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'name' can be a document name or 'active' for the currently active one, adding meaning beyond the raw schema default.
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 'Close' and resource 'document' clearly, and distinguishes from siblings like close_sketch and close_workspace. The scope is precise enough that an agent can identify it without opening the schema.
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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. It only implies usage by explaining the 'active' parameter value, which is more about parameter semantics than tool selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.