Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CAD MCP Server

CAD MCP Server

by 652036
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

array_rectangular

Create copies of selected entities in a rectangular grid using row and column counts plus X/Y spacing in the chosen units.

Instructions

Create rectangular array copies using row and column spacing in the current units.

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_ids": "<entity_ids>",
      "rows": "<rows>",
      "cols": "<cols>",
      "dx": "<dx>",
      "dy": "<dy>"
    },
    "name": "array_rectangular"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dxYes
dyYes
colsYes
rowsYes
unitNo
entity_idsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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 discloses that copies are created in 'current units' but says nothing about whether source entities are preserved, what the units default to, or that the unit parameter overrides 'current units'. Selection-set quantities (rows-1 x cols-1 copies) are unstated.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler.

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

Completeness2/5

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, and 0% schema coverage deserves more: which entities are copied vs. retained, how many copies result, and how unit interacts with dx/dy spacing are all missing.

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 6 parameters. The description only glosses 'rows/cols/dx/dy' and 'current units', but does not explain that dx/dy are spacings, what the unit override does, or how entity_ids are consumed. It only partially compensates for a total coverage gap.

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 (Create) and resource (rectangular array copies) plus the mechanism (row and column spacing). It is distinguishable from its closest sibling array_polar, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The agent must infer that this is the rectangular counterpart to array_polar 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