project_geometryProject edges or bodies onto the active sketch plane to use existing geometry as sketch references, optionally linked parametrically to the source.
Project edges or bodies onto the active sketch plane
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| is_linked | No | True = parametrically linked to source geometry | |
| sketch_name | No | Target sketch (default: most recent) | |
| source_name | Yes | Name of body or edge to project |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'projecting' which implies a transformation, but doesn't detail effects like whether it creates new sketch entities or modifies existing ones. No contradictions with annotations exist.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool has no output schema and annotations cover basic safety (non-destructive), the description is minimally adequate. However, for a CAD operation with potential complexity (e.g., effects on sketches, error conditions), it could benefit from more context on outcomes or usage scenarios to be fully 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents parameters like 'source_name' and 'is_linked'. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond implying projection involves a source and target, which is already inferred from parameter names. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the load.
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 clearly states the action ('project') and the target ('edges or bodies onto the active sketch plane'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'offset_curve' or 'create_sketch', which might have overlapping contexts in CAD operations.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for converting 3D geometry to 2D sketches or how it relates to tools like 'create_sketch' or 'offset_curve'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.