Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CAD MCP Server

CAD MCP Server

by 652036
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_parameter

Change an existing CAD parameter by name, setting a new value and optional unit to adjust drawings, dimensions, and linked geometry.

Instructions

Update an existing parameter value.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "new_value": "<new_value>"
    },
    "name": "update_parameter"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
unitNo
new_valueYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, side effects, or required preconditions, leaving significant behavioral gaps for an update operation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of clutter, which is good. However, it is too thin for a three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or schema descriptions, so conciseness here borders on under-specification.

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?

Given a mutation tool with three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It provides only the bare purpose and omits behavioral, usage, and parameter details an agent would need.

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 name, new_value, and unit. It only loosely corresponds to updating a parameter value and gives no meaning for the name identifier, the optional unit, or accepted value types.

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?

The description gives a clear verb+resource: update an existing parameter value. It distinguishes updating from getting or listing parameters, but does not differentiate this tool from the sibling set_parameter, leaving ambiguity about which mutation tool to choose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling is appropriate in given contexts. The description does not mention prerequisites or how this differs from 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