Create vector graphics from selected CAD entities or an entire scene for preview, export, or documentation.
Generate SVG for selected entities or the full scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| viewport | 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 burden. It never says whether the SVG is returned inline, written to a file path, or how the result is delivered, nor does it mention any permissions or side effects — a key unknown for a generation/export tool.
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 waste. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly achieved by omitting needed detail rather than by tight writing.
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 on a 2-parameter tool, the description should carry far more weight. It omits return/delivery format, parameter meaning, and relationship to sibling export tools.
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% and neither parameter is described. The phrase 'selected entities' loosely maps to entity_ids, but the viewport parameter is never explained, and the interaction between the two (e.g., whether entity_ids overrides viewport) is 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?
States a specific verb and output ('Generate SVG') plus the scope of what is rendered ('selected entities or the full scene'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like export_svg, render_preview_svg, or batch_generate_svg, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance is given. With siblings such as export_svg, render_preview_svg, batch_generate_svg, and export_pdf in the list, the agent gets no signal about which of these to pick or under what conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.