Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CAD MCP Server

CAD MCP Server

by 652036
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

add_mtext

Add multi-line text annotations to CAD drawings at a given position, width, and height, with optional styling.

Instructions

Add a multi-line text 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": {
      "content": "<content>",
      "position": "<position>",
      "width": "<width>",
      "height": "<height>"
    },
    "name": "add_mtext"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
styleNo
widthYes
heightYes
contentYes
positionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
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 burden. It only says 'add', giving no information about whether the new entity is selected/returned, what happens on failure if position/width are invalid, or the coordinate/unit conventions expected for placement.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise for a tool with five parameters and a nested position object. It earns its place but leaves the definition sparse.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a nested object parameter needs substantially more description than one sentence. Nothing tells the agent how to call it correctly or what it returns.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters (content, position, width, height, style). The description only hints that content is text; it says nothing about position being an {x,y} object, that width/height must be positive, or what style accepts.

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 + multi-line text annotation), and the word 'multi-line' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling add_text (single-line). However, it never names or contrasts the sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite siblings add_text, add_leader, and add_multileader occupying adjacent use cases. The agent is left to guess which annotation tool to pick.

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