CAD MCP Server

by 652036

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

chamfer_2d

Creates a chamfer line between two lines, using specified distances from each line. Automates corner beveling in technical drawings.

Instructions

Create a simple chamfer line between two lines.

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": {
      "line_id_a": "<line_id_a>",
      "line_id_b": "<line_id_b>",
      "dist1": "<dist1>",
      "dist2": "<dist2>"
    },
    "name": "chamfer_2d"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`unit`	No
`dist1`	Yes
`dist2`	Yes
`line_id_a`	Yes
`line_id_b`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states the action. It does not disclose whether the original lines are trimmed or modified, whether the operation is reversible, what happens on invalid or non-intersecting line IDs, or whether any permissions are needed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding beyond the mildly redundant word 'simple.' It is efficiently sized, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 five-parameter mutating geometry tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter meaning, edge-case behavior, and return information, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently.

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 five parameters, and the description adds no meaning: dist1/dist2 are never explained (offset distances? along which line?), the two line IDs are only vaguely implied by 'between two lines,' and the optional unit enum is unaddressed. This fails to compensate for the 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 ('chamfer line between two lines'), so an agent knows the core operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like fillet_2d or chamfer_3d, leaving the agent to infer the 2D vs 3D and fillet vs chamfer boundaries.

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 is provided, and no alternatives are named. The agent is not told when to choose chamfer_2d over fillet_2d or chamfer_3d, nor what preconditions (existing lines, valid IDs) must hold.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server