Exports 2D CAD entities as a zipped ESRI Shapefile package, optionally writing it to disk for GIS workflows.
Export 2D entities as a zipped ESRI Shapefile package and optionally write it to disk.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the output is packaged as a zip and the disk write is optional. It stops short of explaining what happens when 'path' is omitted (in-memory result?), what permissions are needed, or how the 2D-only restriction affects 3D entities.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, scope, and format come first, and the optional behavior is tacked on last, which is the right ordering.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description must do more work than it does. It adequately conveys the output packaging, but an agent still lacks guidance on parameter usage, undefined-path behavior, and the choice among sibling export formats.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description is the only clue: 'optionally write it to disk' implies 'path' is the optional disk target. It says nothing about what 'entity_ids' accepts or what happens if it is empty/omitted, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb ('Export'), resource ('2D entities'), and output format ('zipped ESRI Shapefile package'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many other export_* siblings (export_geojson, export_dwg, export_dxf), leaving the format choice to the agent's domain knowledge.
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?
The phrase 'optionally write it to disk' hints at two operating modes but never says when to use one over the other, nor when this tool should be preferred over the sibling exporters (e.g., export_geojson) or paired with import_shapefile. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.