Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SolidWorks-MCP

SolidWorks-MCP

by hjbaard
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_hole_on_face

Drills a round hole on any planar face at a specified 3D point, with through-all or blind depth options and optional edge-relative positioning for stable design intent.

Instructions

Drill a round hole on ANY planar face, centred at 3D point (x, y, z) mm.

face is "+x"/"-x"/"+y"/"-y"/"+z"/"-z": the face facing that way through the point is drilled, so a pocket floor or a step works too. Through all, or depth_mm deep (blind: heat-set inserts, screw pilots). Returns mass properties and dimensions (diameter, x, y, depth). from_edges=True measures x and y from the face's nearest straight edges instead of the origin, so the hole keeps its distance to them when the part changes (measured_from names the edges): use it where the design means it.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
faceYes
nameNoHole
x_mmYes
y_mmYes
z_mmYes
depth_mmNo
from_edgesNo
diameter_mmYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.19.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / from_edges
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "From Edges",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / depth_mm
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Depth Mm"
+}
  3. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does reasonably well: it discloses that it mutates the model by drilling, that it works on pockets floors and steps, and that it returns mass properties plus a dimensions object. It omits prerequisites (must a part be open/active?) and what happens on a non-planar or non-intersecting face.

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?

Front-loads the core action and coordinate frame, then layers face semantics, depth options, and the edge-measurement flag. Parenthetical asides ('heat-set inserts, screw pilots', '`measured_from` names the edges') are useful but slightly fragment the read; no truly wasted sentences.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 8-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs: geometry anchoring, depth mode, edge-relative measurement, and the shape of the return value. Missing only the unmentioned `name` param and failure-mode/precondition notes.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 params, so the description must compensate, and it does for face (valid string values), x/y/z (mm, origin vs nearest straight edges), depth_mm (null = through all), and from_edges (semantics plus measured_from). Only the optional `name` parameter and the diameter/aspect of units get no explicit treatment.

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 verb and resource ('Drill a round hole') plus scope ('on ANY planar face, centred at 3D point'). It implies a face-anchored operation, which distinguishes it from generic siblings like add_hole, but it never names add_hole, add_hole_wizard, or add_counterbore_hole to make the choice explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives real selection guidance for options rather than alternatives: through-all vs depth_mm for blind holes (heat-set inserts, screw pilots), and when from_edges=True is appropriate ('use it where the design means it'). It lacks guidance on when to pick this over the sibling hole tools, which is the main gap.

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