Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CAD MCP Server

CAD MCP Server

by 652036
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_entity_type

Retrieve the entity type string for a specific entity ID to identify and process CAD drawing objects.

Instructions

Get the entity type string for a specific entity id.

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": {
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_entity_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether the entity must exist, what happens for an unknown id, whether the call is read-only, or what form the 'type string' takes. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap, though the operation is inherently simple.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource and free of padding. Efficient, though it is sparse enough that it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description does address the return value ('entity type string'), which covers the single most important missing piece. However, error behavior for invalid ids and the expected id format remain undocumented for a tool whose schema and annotations are both bare.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is one parameter. The description at least conveys that entity_id identifies a specific entity, which the bare schema does not, but adds no format guidance (id string shape, where ids come from).

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 and resource: 'Get the entity type string for a specific entity id.' An agent knows exactly what is returned, though it does not distinguish this from the many other entity-introspection siblings such as get_entity_properties or get_topology.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With ~15 sibling tools operating on entity metadata, the description gives no signal about when this narrow 'type string' lookup is preferred over get_entity_properties.

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