Import GeoJSON FeatureCollection data into CAD entities, including points, lines, polylines, and polygons, with optional layer, unit, and encoding settings.
Import GeoJSON FeatureCollection data into point, line, polyline, and polygon entities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| unit | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| 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. It discloses the entity types created but says nothing about whether path or content is required, how encoding/units are applied, layer assignment, failure behavior, or whether existing entities are affected.
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 efficient sentence with the verb and target entity types front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity, however, borders on under-specification for a multi-parameter import operation.
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 an import tool with 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits input source handling, encoding/unit behavior, and any safety or overwrite context an agent would need to call it correctly.
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?
All 5 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them (path, content, encoding, unit, layer). It adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the path-vs-content input mode and unit/encoding semantics entirely unexplained.
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 ('Import') and resource ('GeoJSON FeatureCollection data') plus the resulting entity types (point, line, polyline, polygon). The GeoJSON format name implicitly distinguishes it from import_step, import_shapefile, and import_csv_points, though it never names an alternative.
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, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like import_shapefile or import_csv_points. An agent can only infer that it is used to bring GeoJSON in, with nothing about source format selection or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.