Check whether SolidWorks is reachable, report its revision, the MCP server version, and the active part to verify connection and context before running operations.
Report whether SolidWorks is reachable, its revision, this server's version, and the active/current part.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so by enumerating exactly what is reported (reachability, revision, server version, active part), making clear this is a non-mutating read. It does not say whether an unreachable SolidWorks produces an error or a negative status, which is the one behavioral gap.
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?
A single sentence with the verb first and the four returned items enumerated compactly. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey the return content itself — and it does, listing all four reported fields. Only the failure/unreachable-path behavior is left unspecified, a minor omission for a zero-arg status tool.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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?
States a specific verb ('Report') plus the exact payload: reachability, SolidWorks revision, server version, and the active part. Against a sibling list made up almost entirely of modeling/mutation operations, this is unmistakably the diagnostic health-check tool.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated — an agent can infer this is the preflight/health check to run before issuing modeling commands. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given, though for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool little guidance is genuinely needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.