Define the geographic bounds for paper layouts, grids, and exports by specifying min/max X and Y coordinates. Ensures accurate scaling and alignment of map data in CAD drawings.
Set the current map extent used for paper layout, grids, and exports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxX | Yes | ||
| maxY | Yes | ||
| minX | Yes | ||
| minY | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 coordinate-system expectations, units, whether the extent affects existing entities or only layout output, whether the change is reversible, or whether CRS/project settings must first be configured.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is structurally sound. However, for a tool with four required numeric parameters and no schema documentation, this is under-specified rather than appropriately sized.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition omits information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly, especially coordinate space, units, and prerequisite CRS/project state. Mentioning paper layout, grids, and exports adds some domain context but is far from complete.
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% for four required numeric parameters (minX, minY, maxX, maxY). The description says nothing about their coordinate space, units, expected ordering, or relationship to the current project CRS, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('the current map extent'), so an agent can understand the core action. It does not distinguish this tool from related siblings such as set_drawing_scale, set_project_crs, or create_map_layout, and it does not clarify coordinate-space scope.
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?
It gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools. The phrase 'used for paper layout, grids, and exports' hints at downstream effects but does not tell the agent when this tool should be selected over related extent or scale tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.