Retrieves volume, area, mass, density, and center of gravity from the active SOLIDWORKS document, and can assign a material before calculating.
Propiedades fisicas del documento activo: volumen (mm3), area (mm2), masa (g), densidad (kg/m3) y centro de gravedad (mm). Si se pasa material, lo asigna antes (nombre del .sldmat, p.ej. '6061-T6 (SS)').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | No | SOLIDWORKS Materials | |
| material | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important side effect — passing 'material' assigns it to the document before measuring — which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it omits whether the assignment is persistent/reversible, permission needs, or failure behavior, leaving notable gaps.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the returned quantities and units, then the conditional side effect. No filler. Minor awkwardness in the phrasing of the conditional clause, but nothing wasted.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description usefully enumerates the return quantities with units, which covers the return gap. But with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the unexplained 'database' parameter and unstated document prerequisites leave the definition only partially complete for a measurement-plus-mutation tool.
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%, so the description must compensate. It documents 'material' well (a .sldmat name with a concrete example), but says nothing about the 'database' parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
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 and enumerates exactly what is computed/returned (volume, area, mass, density, center of gravity) with units, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like sw_bbox or sw_doc_info. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, but the returned quantities are unambiguous.
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: the description notes the conditional behavior when 'material' is passed, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or prerequisites (e.g. that a document must be open, or when to prefer sw_bbox for geometry queries). The tool being read-oriented is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.