Civil 3D MCP Server

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct Civil 3D domain (alignments, corridors, surfaces, etc.) with no overlapping purposes. The health check tool is clearly separate for connectivity verification.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'civil3d_' prefix followed by a singular noun representing the domain (e.g., civil3d_alignment, civil3d_corridor). No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools is well-scoped for a complex CAD environment like Civil 3D, covering major object types without being excessive.
Completeness4/5
Covers core workflows for alignments, corridors, surfaces, profiles, pipe networks, and points. Minor gaps (assemblies, subassemblies, annotation) but not critical for most operations.
Average 3.6/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It outlines each action but omits side effects (e.g., delete is destructive, creation requires a polyline). It does not mention permissions, mutability, or output characteristics. The description is insufficient for safe agentic usage.
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?
The description is a single sentence with a bulleted list, efficiently conveying the resource and actions. No extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Slightly more structure (e.g., grouping actions) could earn a 5.
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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 6 actions, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain conditional parameter requirements (e.g., station/offset for conversion actions, polylineHandle for create). An agent would struggle to invoke the tool correctly without trial and error.
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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already described in the input schema. The description does not add context beyond listing actions; it does not clarify which parameters apply to which actions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the primary job.
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?
Description clearly states the tool manages Civil 3D alignments and enumerates specific actions (list, get, create, delete, station_to_point, point_to_station). This differentiates it from sibling tools like civil3d_corridor. However, the verb 'Manage' is generic; a more active verb could improve clarity.
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?
Description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists actions but does not explain scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., when to use get vs list, or when to use create vs delete). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions actions but does not disclose side effects (e.g., 'rebuild' modifies the corridor) or prerequisites (e.g., corridor must exist). The description lacks detail on behavior beyond the action list.
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?
The description is a single sentence with a clear list of actions, front-loaded with the purpose. It is efficient but could benefit from more structured formatting.
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?
The tool has 2 parameters and no output schema. The description fails to explain what each action returns or the context needed (e.g., drawing must have a corridor). Given the multiple actions, more detail is required for completeness.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the actions from the enum without adding extra meaning, format, or constraints for parameters like 'name'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool manages Civil 3D corridors and lists specific actions (list, get, rebuild, get_surfaces, get_feature_lines, compute_volumes), distinguishing it from sibling tools like civil3d_alignment or civil3d_profile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists actions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., civil3d_alignment for alignments). Usage is implied by the action enum, but no when-not-to-use information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool requires an open drawing, is destructive, or returns entity IDs. It only lists actions, missing critical behavioral context.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and lists actions concisely. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It does not explain return values, side effects, or preconditions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for complex usage.
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?
With 60% schema description coverage, the description adds some value by explaining coordinate usage per action (e.g., 'from start/end XYZ' for lines). However, many parameters lack descriptions in both schema and description, so the contribution is marginal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates basic AutoCAD geometry in Civil 3D and lists the specific actions (create_line, create_polyline, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like civil3d_alignment or civil3d_corridor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for basic geometry creation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling names provide some context, but no direct exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It lists actions including destructive ones (e.g., delete) but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or operational constraints beyond the action names. Minimal transparency.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences. First sentence states purpose, second enumerates actions. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
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 the tool has 15 parameters and 11 actions, the description is too brief. It lacks details about preconditions, return values (no output schema), or usage context for each action. An agent would need additional information to invoke the tool correctly for most actions.
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 high (87%), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond listing actions; it does not explain parameter usage or relationships. The schema itself provides descriptions and enums, so the description adds limited value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the resource (Civil 3D surfaces) and action (manage), and lists specific operations. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on other Civil 3D objects like alignments or corridors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (for surface management) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare with alternatives among siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must handle behavioral disclosure. It lists actions like 'save' and 'new' but does not explain side effects, required permissions, or error handling. The descriptions are minimal but cover the basic intent.
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?
The description is extremely concise, using one sentence and a list. It front-loads the purpose and lists actions efficiently with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a multi-action tool with no output schema, the description provides minimal detail for each action. More context on the 'save' and 'new' actions (e.g., file paths, overwrite behavior) would be beneficial.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the action names with brief explanations but adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Manage the active Civil 3D drawing' and lists specific actions, making it distinct from sibling tools like civil3d_alignment or civil3d_corridor.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, if the user wants to work with an alignment, they would need to infer that civil3d_alignment is more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It lists actions but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or mutation behavior for create/add actions, leaving ambiguity.
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?
The description is very concise: a single sentence followed by a comma-separated list of actions with minimal parenthetical context. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Despite listing actions, the description lacks detail on each action's specific behavior, return values, and parameter applicability. Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema), this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, meeting baseline. The description adds context by parenthetically noting constraints like 'between structures' and 'at X,Y', which aids parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Manage gravity pipe networks' and lists all supported actions, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other Civil3D objects like alignments, corridors, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for pipe network operations but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists actions but does not specify side effects (e.g., creation modifies drawing, deletion is destructive), required permissions, or state changes. This is insufficient for a tool with both read and write operations.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists actions concisely. Every part earns its place with no redundant or wasted words.
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 the tool's complexity (multiple actions, 7 parameters) and no output schema, the description lacks details on return values or side effects. It does not explain what each action produces or changes, making it incomplete for a complex tool.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping actions to parameters (e.g., list by alignment implies use of alignmentName), but it does not fully detail which parameters are required for each action, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it manages Civil 3D profiles (vertical geometry) and enumerates specific actions (list, get, get_elevation, create_from_surface, create_layout, delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like civil3d_alignment (horizontal) and civil3d_surface.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by listing actions with parenthetical notes on required parameters (e.g., list by alignment, get by alignment + name). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or include exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It lists actions but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., deletion is irreversible), authentication needs, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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 sentences: the first defines the purpose, the second enumerates actions. No extraneous words, front-loaded with the core action list. Very efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 11 parameters and 6 actions, the description is brief but covers the main actions. However, it lacks details on return values or behavior for different actions. An output schema could complement, but none exists, so more detail would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it mentions optional group filtering for list, point number for get/delete, batch creation, and import from file. This enhances understanding of parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it manages COGO points and lists all available actions (list, get, create, delete, list_groups, import). It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle other civil3d elements like alignments, corridors, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The tool description implies usage for point management but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when-not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and adequately discloses that the tool checks if the plugin is 'running and responsive', implying a safe read-only operation. However, it does not detail potential error responses or timeout 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 short sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and followed by usage context. Highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for a simple health check. Could optionally mention the return format (e.g., success/failure), but not critical for such a basic tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly does not add parameter info, as none are needed. Baseline 4 for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it checks if the plugin is running and responsive, using specific verb 'Checks' and resource 'Civil 3D MCP plugin'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform specific operations like alignment or corridor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this to verify connectivity before performing other operations', providing direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![civil3d-mcp-civil3d-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DaniGhosy/civil3d-mcp-civil3d-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DaniGhosy/civil3d-mcp-civil3d-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![civil3d-mcp-civil3d-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DaniGhosy/civil3d-mcp-civil3d-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DaniGhosy/civil3d-mcp-civil3d-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DaniGhosy/civil3d-mcp-civil3d-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server