Retrieve every component in an assembly with its name, file path, fixation state, position, rotation, and bounding box, all in assembly coordinates.
List the assembly's components: name, path, fixed, position, rotation, bounding box.
Positions are in mm and rotations in degrees, both in assembly coordinates; the bounding box of each component is in assembly coordinates too.
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only listing operation and adds valuable behavioral context by specifying units (mm, degrees) and coordinate systems for positions, rotations, and bounding boxes. It does not cover edge cases like empty assemblies, but this is minor for a simple list tool.
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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and output fields, and the second clarifies units and coordinate context.
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?
For a no-parameter listing tool, the description provides the essential output fields and their units. It could be more explicit that it operates on the currently open/active assembly, but the definite article 'the assembly' and the tool context make this reasonably clear.
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?
There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty schema. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are not applicable.
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 and resource ('List the assembly's components') and enumerates exactly what is returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_faces and list_edges, which operate on different geometric entities.
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 intended use is implied by the description: call this when you need the assembly's components and their properties. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as get_bounding_box or list_faces, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.