Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CAD MCP Server

CAD MCP Server

by 652036
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

add_constraint_equal

Enforce equal length or size between two CAD drawing entities by adding an equal constraint linking entity_a and entity_b.

Instructions

Add a equal constraint.

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": {
      "entity_a": "<entity_a>",
      "entity_b": "<entity_b>"
    },
    "name": "add_constraint_equal"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_aYes
entity_bYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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 it discloses nothing: not whether the entities must already exist, whether the constraint is persistent, what happens on conflict with existing constraints, or whether the operation is reversible.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single sentence is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise, and it contains a grammatical error ('a equal'). Brevity here reflects missing information, not efficiency.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two entirely undocumented required parameters sitting among a dozen sibling constraint operations, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it 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?

Both required parameters (entity_a, entity_b) have 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no meaning — it never explains that these are the two entities being constrained equal, nor what form an entity reference takes.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name ('add_constraint_equal' → 'Add a equal constraint'), with no scope or distinguishing detail beyond the obvious. It does imply two entities are related by equality, but it never says what kind of entity is valid or how this differs from the many sibling add_constraint_* tools.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 constraint versus add_constraint_coincident, add_constraint_parallel, add_constraint_concentric, or the other constraint siblings, and no mention of prerequisites. An agent gets no basis for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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