list_assembly_partsGet a complete list of parts in an assembly with their name, type, linked target, position, and volume to understand component structure and verify assembly data.
List parts of an assembly: name, type, linked-target name, position, volume.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assembly | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds the returned field names, which is useful context about the output. However, it does not disclose whether nested subassemblies are included, error behavior for invalid assembly names, or whether position/volume refer to global or local coordinates.
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 sentence that starts with the action and resource, then lists output fields. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes.
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?
For a one-parameter tool, the description omits critical details about the input's meaning and preconditions. It lacks any mention of what constitutes an 'assembly' in this context, whether the assembly must be open, or how the returned data is structured (e.g., a list of objects with those fields).
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the 'assembly' parameter. It only mentions 'assembly' generically without clarifying whether it is a name, ID, path, or must reference a currently loaded document. An agent cannot determine how to populate this required parameter correctly.
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 ('List') and resource ('parts of an assembly'), and names the output fields (name, type, linked-target name, position, volume), making the purpose unambiguous and easily distinguishable from sibling list tools like list_faces or feature_list.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not state whether it includes subassemblies or when a user would choose it over list_faces or feature_list, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.