onshape_create_feature_studioAdd a Feature Studio tab to an Onshape document for writing custom FeatureScript, enabling in-context development and testing.
Add a Feature Studio tab for custom FeatureScript.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ws | Yes | Workspace id — the <ws> segment of the document URL. | |
| doc | Yes | Document id — the <doc> in cad.onshape.com/documents/<doc>/w/<ws>/e/<elem>. | |
| name | Yes | Tab name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no behavioral hints (no readOnly/destructive flags). The description mentions 'Add' implying a mutation, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, idempotency, or what happens on success. With no annotation coverage, the description fails to inform the agent about expected behavior beyond the basic operation.
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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
This is a simple create tool with three required parameters and no output schema, but the description offers no information about return values, potential errors, or necessary prerequisites. Given the lack of annotations and behavioral disclosure, the tool feels under-specified for an agent that needs to know what to expect after invoking it.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning for the parameters (doc, ws, name) beyond what the schema already documents. No extra context is provided to enrich parameter understanding.
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 uses a specific verb 'Add' and names the resource 'Feature Studio tab' along with its purpose 'custom FeatureScript'. It clearly distinguishes this create tool from sibling get/set feature studio tools without needing to reference them.
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 implies usage — you use this tool to create a feature studio — but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like onshape_get_feature_studio or onshape_set_feature_studio. There is no exclusion or alternative routing, which limits guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.