onshape_get_drawing_viewsRetrieve the drawing views placed on a sheet from an Onshape document, using workspace and element IDs.
The views placed on a drawing sheet.
| 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>. | |
| elem | Yes | Element id (tab) — the <elem> segment of the document URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile. The description adds the scoping detail that views are those 'placed on a drawing sheet,' but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or how sheets are handled. This is a minor gap given the annotation exists.
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 short phrase with no filler, and the drawing-sheet scoping is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the noun-phrase form is less informative than a proper verb-first instruction.
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 simple read-only listing with fully documented parameters and a readOnly annotation, the definition is minimally sufficient: an agent knows what to call and what high-level result to expect. The lack of an output schema and any note about multiple drawing sheets or return structure leaves some ambiguity, but it is not blocking.
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 description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the input schema has 100% coverage with clear explanations for doc, ws, and elem as URL segments. With full schema coverage, the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 title 'List drawing views' supplies a specific verb and resource, and the description clarifies the scope as 'views placed on a drawing sheet.' This is reasonably distinct from sibling element/feature listing tools, though the description itself is a noun phrase and does not explicitly name an action.
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 title and description imply the tool should be used when an agent needs the views on a drawing sheet. However, it does not state when not to use it, mention prerequisites, or reference alternatives among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.