Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
onshape-mcp

onshape-mcp

by gpambrozio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Group instances

onshape_assembly_group

Lock several instances together without individual mates.

Instructions

Lock several instances together without individual mates.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wsYesWorkspace id — the <ws> segment of the document URL.
docYesDocument id — the <doc> in cad.onshape.com/documents/<doc>/w/<ws>/e/<elem>.
elemYesElement id (tab) — the <elem> segment of the document URL.
nameNoFeature name (default "Group").
validateNoRe-read the feature list afterwards and fail if the feature regenerated with an error (default true).
occurrencesYesOccurrence ids to group.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / validate
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Re-read the feature list afterwards and fail if the feature regenerated with an error (default true).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the burden. It conveys the key behavior (rigid grouping that locks instances without mates), but omits that it creates a feature in the assembly, whether it's reversible, error behavior, or permission needs—relevant for a mutation tool with minimal annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though it is so terse that a bit more context could have been added without bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and title-only annotations, the description is thin—it doesn't mention the feature-creation side effect or validation behavior, though the fully documented schema covers the inputs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action (lock instances together) with a clear mechanism (no individual mates), which distinguishes it from mate-based siblings like onshape_assembly_mate. It doesn't explicitly name the alternate tool, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Without individual mates" implies when this is preferable to mating, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage is only inferable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools