Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CAD MCP Server

CAD MCP Server

by 652036
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

batch_generate_svg

Generate SVG files for one or more drawings and write them into an output directory.

Instructions

Generate SVG files for one or more drawings and write them into an output directory.

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": {
      "drawing_ids": "<drawing_ids>",
      "output_dir": "<output_dir>"
    },
    "name": "batch_generate_svg"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
output_dirYes
drawing_idsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that files are written to disk, but not whether existing files are overwritten, whether the directory must pre-exist, permissions/errors, or per-drawing failure behavior for a batch operation. Key mutation semantics are missing.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. Appropriately sized, though brief enough to leave the gaps above.

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?

For a mutating batch filesystem tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It omits return/progress semantics, overwrite behavior, and directory handling that an agent needs to call it safely.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not describe either parameter. It implies drawing_ids (the drawings) and output_dir (the output directory), but adds no format hints (e.g., id format, relative vs absolute path) beyond what the schema's bare types provide.

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 ('Generate') with resource ('SVG files') and scope ('one or more drawings'), plus the side effect ('write them into an output directory'). Clear, though it does not name or distinguish itself from the close sibling 'generate_svg' or 'batch_generate_pdf'.

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 vs alternatives guidance. Given sibling 'generate_svg' exists, the agent cannot tell from the description whether batch_generate_svg is a superset, when to prefer one over the other, or what prerequisites exist. The 'batch' scope is only implied.

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