Check a drawing spec (YAML/JSON, absolute path) for missing keys, bad points, and dimensions missing expect; no SolidWorks required.
Check a drawing spec (YAML/JSON, absolute path) for missing keys, bad points and dimensions without expect. No SolidWorks needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Check' and 'No SolidWorks needed' convey that this is a non-mutating, dependency-free operation, which is useful, but it says nothing about failure modes (e.g., malformed YAML, nonexistent path) or which SolidWorks features the checks depend on.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the file-format and path constraints are packed in without padding.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers what is validated, the input format, and the absence of a SolidWorks dependency. Adequate for a one-parameter validator, with only edge-case behavior left implicit.
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?
Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does: it specifies the accepted formats (YAML/JSON) and that an absolute path is required. It could still note whether the file must exist, but the key semantics are covered.
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 (Check) plus the resource (drawing spec) and enumerates exactly what it looks for: missing keys, bad points, dimensions without `expect`. That precision clearly separates it from build/revise/export siblings without needing to name them.
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?
'No SolidWorks needed' implies an offline, pre-flight use case and is a genuine usage signal, but the description never states when to choose this over swdraw_build_drawing or other siblings, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.