Switch the active FreeCAD document by name so subsequent tools operate on the intended file. Use the name returned by new_document or open_document.
Switch the active document by name (the value returned from new_document/open_document).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Switch the active document' clearly communicates a state mutation, but it does not describe what happens to the previously active document, whether the name must reference an existing document, or error/return behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action is stated first, and the parenthetical clarifies the parameter source efficiently.
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 state-switch tool, the description covers purpose and parameter origin. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits error behavior and what happens to the previously active document, leaving it only minimally complete.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single required 'name' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying that the value should come from new_document/open_document, adding essential meaning beyond the bare string type.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Switch the active document.' It also clarifies the required identifier by tying it to the values returned from new_document/open_document, which distinguishes this from document creation or opening tools.
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?
It identifies the source of the name parameter as the return value of new_document/open_document, implying the prerequisite context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_document or new_document, nor does it describe conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.