CAD MCP Server

by 652036

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_entity_color

Change the display color of one or more CAD entities by assigning color metadata using entity IDs. Use it to control how drawing elements appear in AutoCAD documents.

Instructions

Set entity color display metadata on one or more entities.

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>",
      "color": "<color>"
    },
    "name": "set_entity_color"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`color`	Yes
`entity_ids`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Display metadata' usefully implies a non-geometric, presentation-only change, but it says nothing about whether existing color is overwritten, permission/auth requirements, whether it affects plotting vs screen display only, or what the response returns. Significant gap for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. Appropriately sized, though its brevity coincides with the informational gaps noted elsewhere rather than being a fault of structure.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent lacks color format, multi-entity behavior clarification, and any mutation semantics to invoke it 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 compensate. It only implies entity_ids accepts multiple entities ('one or more entities') but gives no color format details (name, hex, palette index) for the required 'color' string, leaving the most important input semantics undocumented.

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 and resource ('Set entity color display metadata on one or more entities'), which is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like set_entity_property, set_entity_linetype, or set_layer_color, so no credit for sibling differentiation.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as set_entity_property or set_layer_color. The agent gets no routing help among the many set_* siblings.

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

Deploy Server