Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CAD MCP Server

CAD MCP Server

by 652036
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

add_component

Add a component reference to an assembly by specifying assembly ID, file path or ID, and position, with optional rotation.

Instructions

Add a component reference to an assembly.

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": {
      "assembly_id": "<assembly_id>",
      "file_path_or_id": "<file_path_or_id>",
      "position": "<position>"
    },
    "name": "add_component"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
positionYes
rotationNo
assembly_idYes
file_path_or_idYes

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. It implies a mutation ('Add'), but omits whether the assembly must already exist, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, and what the result looks like. It adds almost no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, clearly stating the action and target. Its terseness is efficient, though it is too sparse to be fully helpful.

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?

Given a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. An agent lacks parameter meanings, usage conditions, and behavioral expectations needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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% with 4 parameters. The description does not explain assembly_id, file_path_or_id, position, or rotation, nor does it clarify the required 3-item position array, the optional rotation array, or the difference between a file path and an ID. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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?

The description gives a clear verb ('Add') and a specific resource ('component reference to an assembly'). It distinguishes the operation from creating an assembly, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like create_assembly, insert_block, or remove_component.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. It does not say when an agent should prefer add_component over create_assembly, insert_block, or other assembly/component operations, nor does it mention prerequisites like an existing assembly.

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