MCP CAD services; bundles with SmartScale (measure to CAD).
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from workspace management to design generation and manufacturing planning, with no overlapping functionality.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_cad_workspace, generate_cad_design), but 'describe' and 'health' are one-word names, and 'manufacturing_plan_from_spec' uses a different structure, leading to minor inconsistency.
With 6 tools covering workspace creation, design generation, export, and manufacturing planning, the count is well-scoped and appropriate for the server's purpose.
The tool set covers core workflows (create, generate, export, plan) and status checks, but lacks update/delete operations for CAD designs, which may limit iterative editing.
create_cad_workspaceBInspectCreate a ProtoGen CAD workspace for another agent or workflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | No | ||
| constraints | No | ||
| design_goal | Yes | ||
| owner_agent | Yes | ||
| payment_ref | No | ||
| project_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'create' but omits details about side effects (e.g., whether a workspace is persisted, if it can be overwritten), dependencies, or authorization needs. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool.
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 concise sentence, but it is overly terse, sacrificing necessary detail. It could be expanded slightly to include parameter hints or usage notes without losing conciseness.
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 6 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of parameter and behavioral guidance.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (e.g., project_name, owner_agent, design_goal, constraints, payment_ref, request_id). The agent receives no guidance on what values to provide.
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 'Create', the resource 'ProtoGen CAD workspace', and the target audience 'for another agent or workflow'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like describe, export_cad_design, generate_cad_design, etc., which focus on different tasks.
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 the context of use ('for another agent or workflow'), which implies when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, though the sibling names give indirect differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
describeAInspectReturn ProtoGen capabilities and current CAD environment status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 a read operation ('Return') but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, safe, or lacks side effects. It also omits any mention of authorization requirements or rate limits, though the operation is likely safe.
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?
Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with action and subject. Every word earns its place.
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?
The description is brief but adequate for a zero-parameter tool with an output schema present. It explains the purpose without needing to detail return values, as the output schema handles that. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the scope (e.g., 'current environment' might be vague).
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 tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. The description adds no further parameter information, but none is needed.
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 it returns ProtoGen capabilities and current CAD environment status, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('ProtoGen capabilities and current CAD environment status'). With no parameters, the purpose is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions like creating or exporting.
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 implies usage for getting information before performing other operations, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'health'. The context is clear given its zero-parameter nature, but no exclusions or alternative hints are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
export_cad_designCInspectExport a CAD design as OpenSCAD, STEP contract metadata, or manufacturing brief.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| design_id | Yes | ||
| payment_ref | No | ||
| export_format | No | openscad |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must disclose side effects. It only says 'Export' which is ambiguous—could be read-only or create files. No mention of auth, rate limits, or irreversible actions.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. Efficient but could be slightly more structured to list parameters or usage.
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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain what each format does, when payment_ref is needed, or what the output contains.
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%, yet the description does not explain any parameters. The export_format default is 'openscad' but the description lists three formats without mapping to parameter values. payment_ref is not mentioned at all.
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?
Description clearly states the tool exports a CAD design and lists three export formats (OpenSCAD, STEP contract metadata, manufacturing brief). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_cad_design or manufacturing_plan_from_spec, which may also produce similar outputs.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't specify that the design must exist or that payment_ref is needed for certain formats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_cad_designCInspectGenerate a parametric CAD design contract in a ProtoGen workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| features | No | ||
| material | No | aluminum | |
| part_name | Yes | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| payment_ref | No | ||
| workspace_id | Yes | ||
| design_intent | No | ||
| dimensions_mm | Yes | ||
| output_formats | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It omits behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., overwriting existing designs), authentication needs, rate limits, or implications of the payment_ref parameter. The agent learns nothing about safety or costs.
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 one sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action. However, given the tool's complexity, slightly more detail would not be excessive; still, it earns its place.
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?
Despite an output schema and nested parameters, the description is a single sentence. It does not explain the concept of a 'design contract,' the role of payment_ref, or how outputs are returned. The tool is high-complexity (9 params, nested), but the description is minimal.
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 schema has 0% description coverage across 9 parameters, yet the description provides no parameter explanations. It fails to clarify the meaning of key parameters like design_intent, features, or payment_ref, making it extremely hard for the agent to use them correctly.
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 'Generate a parametric CAD design contract in a ProtoGen workspace,' specifying the verb 'generate,' the resource 'parametric CAD design contract,' and the scope 'ProtoGen workspace.' This distinguishes it from siblings like create_cad_workspace (workspace creation) and export_cad_design (export), leaving no ambiguity.
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 (e.g., compared to create_cad_workspace or manufacturing_plan_from_spec). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, suitability, or exclusions, forcing the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
healthAInspectReturn ProtoGen health and workspace counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It states the tool returns health and workspace counts, which is the core behavior. No side effects or destructive actions are implied, which is accurate for a read-only health check. Could mention if authentication is needed, but not critical.
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?
Single sentence, directly states the function. No wasted words. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a parameterless health check tool.
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 zero parameters, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (assumed to document return structure), the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool returns (health and workspace counts) and nothing more is needed.
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?
No parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline 4 applies since schema already fully covers parameter semantics.
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?
Description clearly states it returns health and workspace counts. The verb 'Return' and resource 'ProtoGen health and workspace counts' is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on CAD operations (create, describe, export, generate, manufacturing_plan).
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool's purpose is self-evident as a health check, and sibling tools are functionally distinct (creating/exporting/describing CAD designs). Lacks explicit when-not or context triggers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
manufacturing_plan_from_specBInspectGenerate a manufacturing plan, BOM, DFM notes, and cost estimate from a product spec.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | No | ||
| payment_ref | No | ||
| product_spec | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does (generates outputs) without mentioning side effects, required permissions, constraints (e.g., cost, time), or any behaviors like file creation or external calls. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's impact.
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 sentence, concise with no wasted words. However, it does not front-load critical details, and the brevity sacrifices necessary context for parameter semantics and behavioral transparency. It could be reorganized to include key information without adding length.
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?
The tool has 3 parameters (1 required) and generates multiple outputs, but the description only mentions the input 'product spec' and not the optional parameters. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description fails to contextualize the outputs or any prerequisites, making it incomplete for an agent to determine correct usage.
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 should explain all parameters. It only references 'product_spec' implicitly, ignoring 'request_id' and 'payment_ref'. The optional parameters lack any description, leaving an agent without guidance on their purpose or format. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 'Generate' and the resources: manufacturing plan, BOM, DFM notes, and cost estimate. It distinguishes the tool from siblings which focus on CAD workspaces, health, and describe, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
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 implies usage when a product spec is available to generate a manufacturing plan, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context from sibling names helps infer uniqueness, but the description itself lacks direct usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.