List the feature tree of the active SOLIDWORKS document, including each feature's name, type, and suppressed state. Use it to inspect model history or debug missing operations.
Arbol de operaciones del documento activo (nombre, tipo, suprimida).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the shape of each returned entry (name, type, suppressed) but says nothing about read-only behavior, ordering, pagination, or what 'documento activo' means if 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?
One compact sentence with no filler, and the resource and returned fields are front-loaded. Slightly terse given what remains unexplained, but 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 listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately signals the return fields, but it omits the limit parameter, truncation behavior, and the read-only nature expected of an agent making this call. Partially complete.
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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter (limit, default 200) is never mentioned in the description, so its purpose, units, and ceiling are undocumented anywhere. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific resource (the operation tree of the active document) and even enumerates the returned fields (nombre, tipo, suprimida). This distinguishes it from siblings like sw_list_bodies, though the verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as sw_list_bodies, sw_doc_info, or sw_rebuild; no prerequisites or context of use are given. The agent must infer that this is a read-only inspection call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.