Write selected drawing entities to a STEP-like text file by specifying entity IDs and an output path for CAD data exchange.
Export entities to STEP-like text.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "export_step"
}
}| 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 are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral load. It conveys only that an export produces 'STEP-like text' but says nothing about file writing, path handling, side effects, permissions, overwrite behavior, or whether the output is returned or saved.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is concise, though its extreme brevity contributes to ambiguity rather than clarity.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and two undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. It identifies the operation and format but omits essential details about behavior, parameters, and results.
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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters, and the description does not compensate. 'Entities' loosely hints at entity_ids, but the path parameter is unmentioned, and no details clarify what the parameters mean or how they should be supplied.
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 states a specific verb ('Export'), resource ('entities'), and target format ('STEP-like text'), which distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_iges and export_stl. It is clear enough to select in context, though 'STEP-like' and 'entities' are somewhat vague.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as import_step, export_iges, export_stl, or export_dwg. The format name provides implicit context, but there are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.