Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CAD MCP Server

CAD MCP Server

by 652036
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_table

Add table annotations to CAD drawings by defining rows, columns, and placement to organize data.

Instructions

Create a table 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": {
      "rows": "<rows>",
      "cols": "<cols>",
      "position": "<position>"
    },
    "name": "create_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
colsYes
rowsYes
styleNo
positionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
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 behavioral burden, and it says nothing about which document/layer the table is placed in, what units position uses, or what happens on the returned object. Only the bare mutation is implied by 'Create'.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density. There is nothing to front-load because nothing meaningful is stated.

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 4-parameter tool with a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot infer how to build the position object or what rows/cols mean without guesswork.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, including a nested position object with x/y, yet the description mentions none of rows, cols, style, or position semantics. It fails to compensate for the schema gap at all.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description supplies a verb and resource ('Create a ... table annotation'), which is marginally more than the bare name. However, it is close to a tautology: 'annotation' adds little, and nothing distinguishes it from the many other create_* siblings such as create_box or add_text.

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?

There is no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like set_table_cell for filling cells after creation. The only implied guidance is that it creates rather than edits, which is already obvious from the name.

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