Switch the active configuration in a SolidWorks document by name, optionally targeting a specific open document. Use it to change which configuration drives the model before editing or exporting.
Switch to another configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state non-destructively. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether the switch triggers a rebuild, how it interacts with the optional doc parameter, or what happens if the name is unknown.
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 short sentence with no filler, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficient. There is nothing front-loaded beyond the bare action.
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?
This is a state-mutating tool with two parameters, one of which is required but undocumented in both schema and description, and no output schema. Given that, the description should cover the required parameter and the effects of the switch; it covers neither.
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?
Schema description coverage is 50%: only `doc` is documented, while the required `name` parameter has no schema description at all. The tool description does nothing to compensate — it never clarifies that `name` is the target configuration, nor the scope of the switch when `doc` is omitted.
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 gives a specific verb ('switch to') and resource ('another configuration'), so the agent knows this changes the active configuration. It does not distinguish itself explicitly from siblings like sw_list_configurations, sw_add_configuration or sw_delete_configuration, though the verb 'switch to' implicitly signals an existing configuration.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the configuration must already exist, must be listed via sw_list_configurations first), and no statement about what happens to the previously active configuration. The agent must infer everything.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.