Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CAD MCP Server

CAD MCP Server

by 652036
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

add_constraint_midpoint

Constrain a point to the midpoint of a line in a CAD drawing. This keeps the point centered on the line when geometry changes.

Instructions

Add a midpoint 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": {
      "point_id": "<point_id>",
      "line_id": "<line_id>"
    },
    "name": "add_constraint_midpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
line_idYes
point_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: no mutation semantics, no required permissions, no note on whether the constraint is reversible or how it interacts with existing constraints on the point/line.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, but the brevity stems from under-specification rather than tight editing — there is nothing to front-load because nothing is said.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, no parameter documentation, and a one-line description for a constraint-creation tool with two required parameters. An agent lacks everything needed to call it correctly — which entity moves, what fails, what is returned.

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 the two required parameters. The description adds no meaning: it does not clarify that line_id identifies the line whose midpoint is used or how point_id relates to it, leaving the core semantics of the constraint ambiguous.

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 restates the tool name almost verbatim ("Add a midpoint constraint") without explaining the operation's semantics — e.g. that a point is constrained to the midpoint of a line. It doesn't distinguish itself from the many sibling add_constraint_* tools beyond the word 'midpoint'.

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 guidance on when to use this constraint versus alternatives such as add_constraint_coincident or add_constraint_symmetric, and no preconditions (e.g. point and line must already exist and be unconstrained) are stated.

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