Skip to main content
Glama
pilotarbuza

solidworks-mcp

by pilotarbuza
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

sw_cut_extrude

Removes material by extruding a sketch to create pockets, slots, and plain holes in SolidWorks parts, with depth, end condition, and draft controls.

Instructions

Remove material by extruding a sketch (pockets, slots, plain holes).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
docNoDocument title or path. Defaults to the active document.
nameNoOptional name for the new feature.
depthNoCut depth in mm (blind / mid_plane).
sketchYesSketch name, e.g. 'Sketch2'.
reverseNo
draft_angleNo
start_offsetNoStart this far (mm) from the sketch plane; negative = other side.
end_conditionNo'through_all_both' cuts through the whole part both ways - safest for holes.through_all_both
thin_thicknessNoThin feature: wall thickness (mm) along the sketch.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds functional context (material removal) that complements the safety annotations. Since behavioral traits like input/output limits are not detailed, a neutral score is appropriate, assuming the annotations are the primary source of behavioral constraints.

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?

The definition is highly concise, using a single, focused sentence to convey the entire functional scope of the tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

As a summary, it is adequate but limited. Given the complex set of parameters (like 'depth', 'end_condition', 'thin_thickness'), a more complete definition would clarify which parameters are best suited for achieving the listed outcomes (pockets vs. slots).

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 78% schema coverage, the baseline score is 3. The description only adds high-level semantic meaning to the *results* of the operation (pockets/slots) and does not add unique meaning to the complex parameters themselves.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly defines the action ('Remove material') and the mechanism ('extruding a sketch'). By listing outcomes like 'pockets, slots, plain holes', it provides better domain context than a simple 'extrude' function.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its closely related sibling, 'sw_extrude'. It focuses solely on what the tool achieves without positioning it relative to alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools