FreeCAD MCP Server

Does 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 that the tool returns structured data with specific fields, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential limitations like performance impacts for large documents, error conditions, or whether it requires specific document states, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on returns and usage context, all in three concise sentences. There is no wasted text, and each sentence adds value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's complexity (analyzing document feature trees) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job explaining what it returns and its primary use. However, it could be more complete by mentioning output format specifics or potential side effects, though it adequately covers the essentials for an agent to use it.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter 'doc_name', explaining that an empty string uses the active document. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there is only one parameter, this compensates well, though it could provide more detail on valid document names or error handling.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'structured representation of a document's feature tree', specifying it returns every object with TypeId, label, properties, dependency links, validity state, and touch state. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_documents' or 'inspect_object' by focusing on comprehensive feature tree analysis.

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?

The description provides clear context that this is 'the primary tool for understanding what a FreeCAD model contains', implying it should be used for detailed analysis rather than alternatives like 'list_documents' for basic listing or 'get_screenshot' for visual output. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives.

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