Retrieve open SolidWorks documents with titles, paths, types, and unsaved-change status to identify the current working document for tool operations.
List the documents open in SolidWorks: title, path (empty until saved), type, unsaved changes.
current marks the one the tools work on, active SolidWorks' own. Parts
an open assembly loaded come along, with visible false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses behavioral details beyond the schema: path is empty until saved, 'current' vs 'active' markers carry different meanings, and assembly-loaded parts appear with visible false. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or error conditions, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is substantial disclosure.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a second sentence for important output semantics. It is tight and free of filler, though the final clause is slightly cryptic and could be split for readability.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry return-value meaning. It names the key fields (title, path, type, unsaved changes) and explains the current/active distinction and assembly-loaded parts. It is nearly complete for a simple list tool, missing only a fuller structural description of the returned list.
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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description does not pretend otherwise.
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 and resource ('List the documents open in SolidWorks') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can identify it apart from list-oriented siblings like list_bodies or list_features. The scope is precise enough that no sibling ambiguity remains.
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 description never says when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_status, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The second sentence explains how to read output but offers no routing guidance, leaving usage entirely inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.