Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CAD MCP Server

CAD MCP Server

by 652036
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

set_entity_property

Update a drawing entity's layer, coordinates, closed state, or custom properties by ID. Reserved id and type fields cannot be changed.

Instructions

Set a mutable entity field (layer, coords, closed, properties) or a custom property-bag value. Reserved fields id and type cannot be changed.

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_id": "<entity_id>",
      "property": "<property>"
    },
    "name": "set_entity_property"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueNo
propertyYes
entity_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral load. It discloses mutability limits and reserved-field restrictions, which is useful, but omits permissions, reversibility, side effects on existing values, and error behavior.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraints, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is materially incomplete. Value type, return/error behavior, and interaction with sibling setters are absent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description enumerates allowed property values (layer, coords, closed, properties) and mentions custom property-bag values, partially compensating for the missing property enum. However, entity_id and value semantics remain unspecified, and value has no type.

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 the verb 'Set' and the resource 'entity property', listing mutable fields and reserved fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling set_entity_layer, which overlaps on the 'layer' field, so it misses a clear 5.

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 guidance or alternatives are given. The mutable/reserved distinction implies scope, but an agent must infer when to choose this over set_entity_layer, set_entity_color, or set_parameter.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools