Create a new Onshape document with a specified name, visibility, and description to start parametric CAD modeling.
Create a new Onshape document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the new document | |
| isPublic | No | Whether the document should be public. Defaults to true: free Onshape accounts can only create public documents and get HTTP 409 otherwise | |
| description | No | Optional description for the document |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / properties / isPublic / defaultPrevious value: -falseNew value: +trueInput schema / properties / isPublic / descriptionPrevious value: -"Whether the document should be public"New value: +"Whether the document should be public. Defaults to true: free Onshape accounts can only create public documents and get HTTP 409 otherwise"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states that a document is created. It does not mention authentication, side effects, failure modes (such as the HTTP 409 noted in the isPublic parameter), or what the response contains. This is not misleading, but it is minimal.
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 filler words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices helpful detail for brevity.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the one-sentence description leaves gaps around return value, prerequisites, and when to choose this tool over create_part_studio or create_assembly. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall context is under-specified for a create operation.
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%, and the input schema already documents all three parameters, including the important isPublic default and free-account restriction. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Create') and a concrete resource ('Onshape document'), which clearly identifies the top-level object being created and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_part_studio or create_assembly. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
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 the tool should be used when a new Onshape document is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and the one-sentence description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.