Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CAD MCP Server

CAD MCP Server

by 652036
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

generate_pdf

Create a minimal PDF summary for a drawing using drawing ID and paper size, suitable for CAD documentation.

Instructions

Generate a minimal PDF summary for a drawing.

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": {
      "drawing_id": "<drawing_id>",
      "paper_size": "<paper_size>"
    },
    "name": "generate_pdf"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
scaleNo
drawing_idYes
paper_sizeYes

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 are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It signals that a PDF file will be generated but omits whether it overwrites an existing file, where the output is written, what permissions are needed, and what the return value is.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of fluff, but its extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than carefully structured conciseness. It is minimally viable as a sentence but lacks useful structure.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description must be self-sufficient. One vague sentence is not enough for a file-generating tool with four parameters and two required inputs.

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?

There are 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It does not explain drawing_id, paper_size, path, or scale, so it adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'PDF summary for a drawing', which is more informative than the tool name alone. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as generate_svg or batch_generate_pdf, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites such as whether the drawing must exist or whether paper_size requires a specific format. It only implies a drawing context.

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