Skip to main content
Glama
hjbaard

SolidWorks-MCP

by hjbaard
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_mate

Create assembly mates between two components by selecting faces or cylindrical surfaces; choose coincident, distance, parallel, perpendicular, angle, or concentric constraints.

Instructions

Mate a face of one component to a face of another.

comp_a/comp_b are component names ('Bed' or 'Bed-1'; 'Leg-1/Thigh-1' inside a sub-assembly). face_a/face_b select a face in that component's OWN frame: by direction "+x"/"-x"/"+y"/... (optionally "+y:inner" for the cavity side of a hollow part), by its list_faces(component=...) index, "#5", or by a point on it, "@x,y,z" (a hole's wall: its centre plus the radius along x). mate_type between planar faces: "coincident", "distance" (distance_mm), "parallel", "perpendicular" or "angle" (angle_deg between the faces' normals, 0..180); "concentric" between two cylindrical faces (a pin in a hole, a hinge axis), leaving the turn about the axis free. flip takes the other solution: the mirror side of a distance, the other turning direction of an angle. A distance or angle mate returns its dimension: drive it with set_dimension, or step it with check_motion. An angle mate's dimension then turns the joint the whole way round, past 180 and below 0 (-30 is 30 the other way, the same turn as 330). The result is measured back after the rebuild; a mate that does not hold is removed and the components are put back.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flipNo
comp_aYes
comp_bYes
face_aYes
face_bYes
angle_degNo
mate_typeNocoincident
distance_mmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / angle_deg
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "title": "Angle Deg",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the verification/rollback semantics ('The result is measured back after the rebuild; a mate that does not hold is removed and the components are put back') and the dimension-driving workflow. This is non-obvious failure behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

The core action is front-loaded and most sentences are information-dense, but the nested parentheticals and the extended angle-wrap discussion ('past 180 and below 0') push length higher than strictly necessary. Still, very little is padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For an 8-parameter assembly-mate tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers selection syntax, valid mate types, modifiers, follow-up tools, return value ('its dimension'), and failure handling. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: comp_a/comp_b naming conventions, four distinct face_a/face_b selection syntaxes (direction with ':inner', list_faces index, '#5', '@x,y,z'), the enumerated mate_type values with distance_mm/angle_deg applicability, and flip's effect on the solution. Only default values go unexplained.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The first sentence gives a precise verb and resource: 'Mate a face of one component to a face of another.' It clearly distinguishes this assembly operation from siblings like delete_mate, suppress_mate, and set_component_transform, so an agent can identify it without schema inspection.

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?

The description establishes when this tool applies (positioning two components via face mates) and routes the agent to follow-on tools: 'drive it with set_dimension, or step it with check_motion.' It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or contrast it against alternatives like set_component_transform, so it stops short of a 5.

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