Creates an empty assembly document and makes it active for composing saved parts.
Create a new empty assembly document; it becomes the current document.
Assemblies compose saved parts: insert_component places each part, add_mate constrains them, check_interference proves nothing overlaps.
| 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 present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key state change—becomes the current document—but does not mention persistence, whether the previous document is closed, or any other side effects. Core behavior is covered, but not richly.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and state effect are front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by providing workflow context and pointing to sibling tools.
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 simple, no-argument creation tool, the description is largely complete: it names what is created, its state, and how it fits into the assembly workflow. Without annotations or an output schema, a note about return values or safety would make it fully complete, but nothing essential is missing for calling it.
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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema leaves nothing undocumented. No parameter explanation is needed, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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: 'Create a new empty assembly document; it becomes the current document.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling creation tools like new_part by naming the document type and empty initial state.
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 gives clear context by explaining that assemblies compose saved parts and names the follow-up tools (insert_component, add_mate, check_interference). It does not explicitly exclude new_part or state 'use when...', so it stops short of full when/alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.