Record every model-changing operation in SolidWorks. Review session journals to track file paths and operation history for safe, recoverable design automation.
The journal of model-changing operations in this session (file path and the last entries).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| last | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by saying it exposes the journal file path and last entries, but it does not cover pagination behavior, entry ordering, or return format details beyond that.
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 compact sentence with no wasted wording, and the key scope ('model-changing operations in this session') is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple read-only retrieval tool.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives a basic idea of what is returned: a journal file path and recent entries. However, it does not describe the return structure, whether entries are chronological, or how the optional 'last' parameter affects the result, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 one optional parameter, 'last', with 0% description coverage. The phrase 'the last entries' hints that the parameter controls how many recent journal entries are returned, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's meaning, and the schema's default and maximum values are left to speak for themselves.
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 identifies a specific resource: the journal of model-changing operations for the current session, including the file path and recent entries. It is clear enough to distinguish it from most sibling tools, but it omits an explicit action verb and does not differentiate it from sw_replay_journal.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes sw_replay_journal, which is closely related, but the description does not mention when to inspect the journal versus replay it, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.