Skip to main content
Glama
hjbaard

SolidWorks-MCP

by hjbaard
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

export

Save the active SolidWorks part or assembly to STEP, STL, IGES, Parasolid, or 3MF, with file verification and optional tessellation control for meshes.

Instructions

Export the current part or assembly to STEP/STL/IGES/Parasolid/3MF (format from extension).

Silent (no prompts). Verifies the file appears on disk and reports its size. For STL/3MF, tessellation resolution is set first: quality 'coarse'|'fine' (default 'fine' for print quality), or pass deviation_mm (+ optional angle_deg) for a reproducible custom resolution (overrides quality). Ignored for other formats. An assembly goes to STL as one file, or one file per component with per_component=True (SolidWorks names them); files lists what was written. STL/3MF keep the part's or assembly's own coordinates (frame), also per component, so a mesh measures back where the model is; slicers place it anyway.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
qualityNofine
angle_degNo
file_formatNo
deviation_mmNo
per_componentNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.13.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / per_component
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Per Component",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 well: it discloses that export is silent (no prompts), verifies the file exists on disk, reports its size, describes the assembly-to-STL naming/coordinate behavior, and explains the tessellation override logic. It omits overwrite/permission behavior and failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Content is front-loaded (format, then silent/verification behavior, then format-specific tessellation rules), and each sentence carries real information. It is on the longer side with a few parenthetical asides, but nothing is filler.

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 a no-output-schema, no-annotation mutation tool, it covers the return signal (`files` lists what was written, size reported) and the tricky assembly/coordinate cases. The remaining gap is the unexplained file_format parameter and lack of error/overwrite semantics.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains quality, deviation_mm, angle_deg, and per_component well. However, it never clarifies the file_format parameter (it instead says format comes 'from extension') or the path parameter, leaving two of six params semantically unresolved.

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?

The description names a specific verb (export), the exact resource (current part or assembly), and enumerates the supported interchange formats (STEP/STL/IGES/Parasolid/3MF), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with save_part/save_assembly, but the format list implicitly separates it from native-save siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied (producing interchange meshes/CAD for external tools) rather than stated. There is no explicit 'use this vs. that' routing and no mention of prerequisites like an active/fully-rebuilt document, which matters given it targets 'the current part or assembly'.

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