Open an existing SolidWorks assembly (.sldasm) file and set it as the active document. Use this tool to load assemblies for inspection, measuring, or further processing.
Open an existing .sldasm file; it becomes the current document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
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 is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the file becomes the current document, but does not describe what happens to any currently open document, error behavior for invalid paths, or file access requirements. For a tool that mutates application state, this is a significant 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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes the key state change, earning its place with minimal words.
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 one-parameter open operation, the description covers the essential behavior and result. It is adequately complete given the low complexity, though it could mention handling of unsaved current documents or errors for a fully robust definition.
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 schema has a single 'path' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description adds some meaning by clarifying the path points to an existing .sldasm file, but it does not specify path format, absolute vs relative, or extension handling beyond the obvious context.
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 ('Open') with a specific resource ('.sldasm' assembly file) and states the result ('becomes the current document'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like open_part and new_assembly based on file type.
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 implies usage for opening existing assembly files, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus open_part or new_assembly. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints, leaving the agent to infer from the .sldasm extension.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.