cadkit

by saltyeg

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

cad_part_studio_create

Create a new Part Studio within a document workspace and return its element ID for subsequent modeling steps.

Instructions

Create a Part Studio; returns elementId.

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": {
      "documentId": "<documentId>",
      "workspaceId": "<workspaceId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "cad_part_studio_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`documentId`	Yes
`workspaceId`	Yes
`elementId`	No
`name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that it returns elementId, omitting any side effects, authorization needs, or constraints (e.g., whether it overwrites existing elements or creates new ones).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

At 5 words in a single sentence, it is extremely concise but at the expense of completeness. It earns its place but lacks structure and crucial details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 4 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain the purpose of Part Studio, the role of each parameter, or return value structure. Agents likely misunderstand usage.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names. It fails to explain the purpose of 'elementId' (is it an existing element to modify or a new ID?), or constraints on 'name'. This leaves the agent guessing.

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 explicitly states 'Create a Part Studio; returns elementId.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Part Studio'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cad_document_create (creates a document) or cad_sketch_begin (starts a sketch).

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 alternatives, nor any prerequisites or limitations. The description merely states what it does without contextual usage hints.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.