Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CAD MCP Server

CAD MCP Server

by 652036
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_viewport

Create a viewport entity for technical drawings by specifying a name and view type, enabling layout management in CAD documents.

Instructions

Create a viewport entity.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "view_type": "<view_type>"
    },
    "name": "create_viewport"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
view_typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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 gives no disclosure of permissions, constraints, what a viewport entity is, or what happens on creation. One sentence restating the name does not meet the bar for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 – not wasteful, but also under-specified rather than concise. It is front-loaded trivially.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It omits what an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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% for two required parameters ('name', 'view_type'). The description adds nothing about their formats, valid values (e.g. possible view_type values), or meaning, so it 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.

Purpose3/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a viewport entity'), but the term 'viewport entity' is vague in a CAD context and the description does not differentiate this from the numerous sibling creation tools (create_box, create_group, create_assembly, etc.). An agent can know it creates something, but not distinctively what.

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, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. Given the many sibling creation tools, the absence of any routing signal leaves the agent to guess.

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