Import ESRI Shapefile geometry and DBF attributes as point, line, polyline, or polygon entities to convert GIS mapping data into editable CAD drawings.
Import ESRI Shapefile geometry and DBF attributes into point, line, polyline, and polygon entities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| dbf_path | No | ||
| shp_path | Yes |
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 discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether entities are created in the current drawing, how CRS/projection is handled, whether existing content is affected, or what happens when dbf_path is omitted. For a data-ingesting mutation tool this is a substantial gap.
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 filler. It is appropriately sized, though it errs toward under-specification rather than wasted words.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, with four undocumented parameters, mean the description would need to explain CRS handling, unit conversion, layer targeting, and return behavior. It omits all of these, leaving an agent unable to predict the import's side effects.
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 must compensate. It only loosely hints at shp_path (geometry) and dbf_path (DBF attributes); it says nothing about the unit enum's effect on imported coordinates or what the layer parameter does.
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 resource (import ESRI Shapefile geometry and DBF attributes) and names the entity types produced (point, line, polyline, polygon). It is clearly distinguishable from create_* tools, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling importers like import_geojson, import_dwg, or import_dxf.
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 guidance on when to choose this over import_geojson, import_dwg, or import_dxf, which all ingest external geometry. There is no mention of prerequisites such as an existing project, a target layer, or coordinate system setup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.