FreeCAD MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what information is returned (shape type, volume, topology counts, etc.) which is helpful, but doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, detailed output listing, usage guidance, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value. The description is appropriately sized for a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining purpose, usage, and parameters. The main gap is lack of output format details (though it lists what's returned, not how), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides clear explanations for both parameters: 'name: Object name that has a Shape (e.g., "Pad001", "Cut001")' and 'doc_name: Document name. Empty string uses the active document.' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases.

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 tool performs 'Detailed topological analysis of an object's shape' and lists specific outputs (shape type, volume, area, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'inspect_object' by focusing specifically on geometric analysis rather than general inspection.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this to understand the geometric result of a feature — especially useful for diagnosing why a boolean or pocket operation produced unexpected geometry.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance with a specific diagnostic use case, distinguishing it from other tools.

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