Retrieve all block definitions in a CAD drawing to inspect and reuse symbols when building or editing AutoCAD layouts.
List block definitions.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_blocks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say what scope of blocks is returned, whether the result is paginated, or what identifying fields each entry contains, though as a read-only listing the safety stakes are low.
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?
One short sentence with no filler and the verb leading the phrase. It is efficient, though the brevity is also the source of the tool's under-specification.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information about what the tool returns, and it omits scope, return contents, and relationship to block-management siblings. For a listing tool in a large CAD toolset, this leaves the agent guessing about the response.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and has 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 pairs a specific verb ("List") with a resource ("block definitions"), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it gives no scope qualifier (project-wide, document-wide, or current drawing) and does nothing to distinguish it from the many other list_* siblings such as list_layers, list_entities, or list_parameters.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no statement of when to call list_blocks versus create_block, insert_block, edit_block, or explode_block, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the context entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.