Export selected CAD entities to IGES-like text files for interoperability. Specify entity IDs and a target path to convert drawing geometry into an exchange format.
Export entities to IGES-like text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| entity_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether output is written to the path or returned as a string, what happens when entity_ids is omitted (export everything vs. nothing), whether existing files are overwritten, or what format/permissions the path requires. "IGES-like text" is the only behavioral hint, and it is ambiguous rather than clarifying.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy of expression. Nothing is wasted, yet too little is said for a tool with two undocumented parameters.
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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of information and is far too thin for a two-parameter export tool. An agent cannot confidently determine output destination, default selection scope, or failure modes from what is provided.
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?
Both parameters (path, entity_ids) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. "Export entities" weakly implies entity_ids selects which entities, but the meaning, default behavior, and requiredness of path and entity_ids are left entirely to inference.
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?
The description pairs a specific verb ("Export") with a specific resource ("entities") and names the target format (IGES), so an agent can tell it apart from export_step or export_stl by format. It stops short of a 5 because "IGES-like text" hedges on the actual output artifact and the description never contrasts itself with the many sibling exporters.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer IGES over the numerous alternate export formats (STEP, STL, OBJ, SVG, GLTF, 3MF, DWG) in the sibling list. Usage is only inferable from the format name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.