kompas3d

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_document

Create any native KOMPAS-3D document type: part, assembly, drawing, fragment, specification, or text. Returns API7 handles; for API5 modeling, use create_part to get a document_id.

Instructions

Create a native part, assembly, drawing, fragment, specification or text document.

Returns API7 handles; use create_part when you need a document_id for typed API5 modeling tools.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "kind": "<kind>"
    },
    "name": "create_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`visible`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates documents and, more importantly, that it returns API7 handles rather than a document_id. This is meaningful transparency about output behavior, though it does not cover error cases, permissions, or the effect of the visible parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler. The action and resource are stated first, and the crucial API7/API5 distinction is front-loaded in the second sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the essential purpose, allowed kinds, alternate routing, and return type. The main missing context is the visible flag behavior, but the default and boolean name make it less critical.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the allowed document kinds in prose, but these are already present as an enum in the schema, so it adds little. The visible parameter is never mentioned or explained, leaving a real semantic gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('native part, assembly, drawing, fragment, specification or text document'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling create_part by mentioning the API7 handle output versus API5 document_id use case.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to use create_part instead when a document_id for typed API5 modeling tools is needed. This gives an agent a direct routing rule: choose create_document when API7 handles are acceptable or needed, and choose create_part otherwise.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.