Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
solidworks-mcp

solidworks-mcp

by rdolan5
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

solidworks_open_document

Destructive

Open a part, assembly, or drawing from an absolute file path, receiving COM errors or warnings in return.

Instructions

Open an absolute part(1), assembly(2), or drawing(3) path. Returns COM errors/warnings.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "document_type": "<document_type>"
    },
    "name": "solidworks_open_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
read_onlyNo
document_typeYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description mentions that it returns COM errors/warnings, which gives some insight into failure modes. However, it does not explain side effects or success behavior, though the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint true) are present and not contradicted.

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 description is a single, short sentence that conveys the essential information without any redundant or vague wording. It is immediately actionable.

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?

The description is minimal but sufficient for a basic open operation. Given that an output schema exists, return values are not required in the description, and the mention of errors/warnings adds some context. However, it lacks details on preconditions or expected behavior.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description partially explains the document_type parameter by mapping values to part/assembly/drawing, but it does not clarify the path or read_only parameters. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the overall parameter coverage is incomplete.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action (open) and the resource (document path) with explicit enumeration of the supported document types (part, assembly, drawing). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like new_document or save without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as solidworks_new_document or solidworks_active_document. The description only states what it does, not the context or conditions that warrant its use.

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