Load DXF text or base64 into a CAD scene, ensuring layers exist and adding LINE, CIRCLE, ARC, POINT, LWPOLYLINE, and 2D POLYLINE entities.
Import DXF content (UTF-8 text or base64) into the scene: ensures layers exist and adds LINE, CIRCLE, ARC, POINT, LWPOLYLINE, and 2D POLYLINE entities (mm; arcs as radians internally).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | ||
| encoding | 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 behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the side effect of ensuring layers exist, the scope of supported entity types, and the unit/representation conventions (mm; arcs stored as radians internally). It stops short of describing overwrite/merge behavior on existing geometry or error handling for unsupported DXF 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 dense sentence front-loads the action and resource, then flows into format, side effects, and unit conventions. It is efficient and free of filler, though the long parenthetical entity list makes the sentence slightly heavy.
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?
For a two-parameter importer with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what gets imported, side effects on layers, supported entity types, and unit conventions. Missing the return description is acceptable without an output schema, but overwrite/merge semantics and unsupported-entity handling remain gaps.
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%, so the description is expected to compensate. It clarifies that 'content' is DXF text that may be UTF-8 or base64 encoded, which maps directly to the 'content' and 'encoding' parameters and adds real meaning beyond the bare schema. It does not state whether 'encoding' is optional or what the default is, but the coverage is materially improved.
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 (Import) and resource (DXF content) and enumerates exactly which entity types get created (LINE, CIRCLE, ARC, POINT, LWPOLYLINE, 2D POLYLINE), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling importers like import_dwg, import_step, or import_svg.
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 implies usage (importing DXF text into the scene) and hints at format variants through 'UTF-8 text or base64', but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no direction toward alternatives like import_dwg or export_dxf.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.