Inspect a running AutoCAD instance via COM to retrieve window/process identity, current binding, active document, and idle state without altering the CAD session.
Inspect a running AutoCAD application through COM: window/process identity, current binding, active document and idle state. This does not establish a persistent binding or operate on the internal CAD session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the COM transport, the read-only inspection nature, and explicitly disclaims persistent binding and internal-session side effects. It omits failure behavior (e.g., what happens when no AutoCAD instance is running), which is a real gap for a status probe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the scope disclaimer. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the inspected fields, which stands in for a return-value description. It is nearly self-sufficient; only error/edge-case behavior when AutoCAD is absent is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by describing the target application rather than any filter or identifier the caller must supply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific verb (Inspect) and a precise resource (a running AutoCAD application via COM), then enumerates the inspected aspects: window/process identity, binding, active document and idle state. It contrasts itself with the attach/binding tools by negating their behavior, but never names the sibling (e.g., autocad_attach) that an agent should pick instead, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The closing sentence effectively routes usage: 'does not establish a persistent binding or operate on the internal CAD session' tells the agent this is a non-mutating probe and that binding-related needs belong elsewhere. There is no explicit 'use when X, not when Y' clause, but the exclusions give clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.