Lists a SolidWorks document's feature tree, including names, types, and suppression state, with optional dimensions in mm or degrees. Use it to inspect model structure before editing or verifying designs.
The feature tree (names, types, suppression) and optionally each feature's dimensions in mm / degrees.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| include_dimensions | No |
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 needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail — that dimensions are opt-in and returned in mm/degrees — but says nothing about ordering, configuration scoping, or how non-dimensionable features appear.
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 economical sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary payload (the feature tree) before the optional extension. It reads as a noun fragment rather than a complete statement, which slightly undersells the action but wastes nothing.
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 two-parameter read-only listing with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is close but not fully sufficient: return shape is sketched (names/types/suppression) yet ordering, configuration scope, and behavior on an empty or unopened document are unaddressed.
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 coverage is only 50%: `doc` is documented in the schema, but `include_dimensions` has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that dimensions are included 'optionally' and are expressed in mm / degrees, which is exactly the missing semantics. It does not restate the `doc` default, but the schema already handles that.
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 names the resource precisely (the feature tree) and enumerates what it contains: names, types, suppression, plus optional dimensions with units. It is missing an explicit verb ('List/Return') and does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like sw_list_dimensions or sw_list_bodies, but an agent can tell what data comes back.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs to inspect the model's feature tree. There is no statement of when to prefer sw_list_dimensions or sw_list_entities instead, and no mention of preconditions such as an open document (the default-to-active-document behavior lives only in the schema).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.