Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CAD MCP Server

CAD MCP Server

by 652036
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

add_angular_dimension

Add an angular dimension annotation between two lines defined by vertex and points p1, p2. Use for measuring angles in CAD drawings.

Instructions

Add an angular dimension annotation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "vertex": "<vertex>",
      "p1": "<p1>",
      "p2": "<p2>"
    },
    "name": "add_angular_dimension"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
p1Yes
p2Yes
vertexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing: not whether the annotation is committed immediately or requires a transaction, not the units/angle convention (degrees vs radians), not view/drawing prerequisites, and not what is returned. It only restates the creation action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single grammatical sentence with zero filler, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, at this level of brevity it is under-specified rather than efficient given the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with three required nested-object parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies none of the context an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It is materially inadequate for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for three required parameters (vertex, p1, p2), and the description adds no meaning at all about their roles (which point is the angle vertex, how p1/p2 define the rays, ordering). The description does nothing to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add an angular dimension annotation'), and the word 'angular' implicitly distinguishes it from the many sibling dimension tools (aligned, radius, diameter, ordinate). It is clear but does not explicitly route the agent away from those siblings, which is what a 5 would require.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_aligned_dimension, add_linear_dimension, add_dimension_angular, or the other dimension variants in the sibling list. The agent must infer applicability from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools