CAD MCP Server

by 652036

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mirror_2d

Create mirrored copies of one or more drawing entities across an axis line. Use it to reflect geometry in CAD documents by specifying entity IDs and axis endpoints.

Instructions

Create mirrored copies of one or more entities across an axis line.

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_ids": "<entity_ids>",
      "axis_start": "<axis_start>",
      "axis_end": "<axis_end>"
    },
    "name": "mirror_2d"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`unit`	No
`axis_end`	Yes
`axis_start`	Yes
`entity_ids`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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 behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether original entities are preserved, whether mirrored copies are new entities, how the axis line is interpreted (finite segment vs infinite line), or any unit/permission behavior, leaving key operational traits unstated.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, directly stating the action. Every word earns its place, making it maximally concise even if incomplete elsewhere.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations, no output schema, four parameters including a nested object, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It omits whether source entities remain, 2D coordinate handling, unit behavior, and result shape, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only loosely maps 'one or more entities' to entity_ids and 'axis line' to axis_start/axis_end, while unit, coordinate space, and required formats are left undocumented in both description and schema.

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 ('create mirrored copies') and resource ('entities') across an 'axis line', so the core operation is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like offset or array_rectangular that also create transformed copies, and no alternative is named.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are provided. Usage is only implied by the operation description; an agent gets no guidance on choosing mirror_2d over offset, array, or copy-like tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server