List all configurations of a SolidWorks document and identify which one is currently active. Use it to check configuration names and active state before switching or editing.
Configurations of the document and which one is active.
| 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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes which configuration is active, but it does not describe return shape, ordering, or behavior when no document is open.
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 phrase with no wasted words, and the key detail about the active configuration is front-loaded. The fragmentary phrasing is slightly terse but still efficient.
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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is minimally sufficient but does not explain what the returned configurations look like (names, metadata, status indicator format). Without an output schema, those return-value details are left underspecified.
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 with its default behavior. The description adds no further meaning about parameters, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.
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 the resource (document configurations) and adds meaningful scope by stating it also reports which configuration is active. The verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated in the description, and no sibling tool is mentioned, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 when-to-use guidance, no comparison to alternatives such as sw_add_configuration or sw_activate_configuration, and no prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the purpose itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.