Generates complex parametric structures: "structural_grid", "truss", "mechanical_flange", "gear", or "architectural_floorplan".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Type of parametric structure to generate | |
| params | No | Parameters specific to the structure (e.g. baysX, baysY, spacingX, span, height, teeth, module, rooms, etc.) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions generation but does not state whether it creates a new drawing, modifies the active one, requires existing geometry, what side effects occur, or what the return format is.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the enum list follows. It is appropriately sized, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated.
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?
There are no annotations and no output schema, and the tool involves a nested 'params' object with open-ended structure-specific parameters. The description does not explain return values, side effects, or how params should be shaped for each type, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the type enum values but adds no syntax, constraints, or meaning for the nested 'params' object beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the specific verb 'Generates' and the resource 'complex parametric structures', then enumerates the five supported structure types. An agent can distinguish it from sibling CAD tools such as cad_create_block or cad_export_dxf.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools are given. The list of structure types implies scope but does not route the agent among the many sibling CAD tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.