Lists all solid and surface bodies in a SolidWorks document, including bounding boxes and a pick point for each so you can inspect or select geometry.
Solid and surface bodies with bounding boxes and a pick point for each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes real value by disclosing the return payload (bounding boxes plus a pick point per body), which is not in any structured field since there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about scope — whether hidden, suppressed, or component bodies are included.
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?
It is a single short fragment with zero padding, so nothing is wasted. But it is a sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose, and its brevity comes at the cost of omitting scope and behavior.
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?
With no output schema, the description must describe the return value, and it does so at a high level — bounding box and pick point per body. Gaps remain: units of the bounding box, coordinate frame, and whether the call requires an active document or fails without one.
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 single optional 'doc' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default-to-active-document behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not a contribution.
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 phrase 'Solid and surface bodies with bounding boxes and a pick point for each' describes the resource being returned, and the tool name makes the listing intent clear, but the description itself never states a verb like 'lists' or 'enumerates'. It is distinguishable from siblings such as sw_list_features or sw_list_components only by the noun 'bodies', which is doing all the differentiation work.
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 indication of when to call this versus alternatives (sw_mass_properties, sw_measure, sw_list_entities) or what preconditions apply, such as needing an open document. The agent must infer all routing from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.