jwmcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

drawing_entities

Retrieve entities from a .jww drawing, optionally filtered by IDs or tag, to inspect and process CAD elements for AI-driven workflows.

Instructions

Return entities of a drawing (optionally only those with given ids or tag).

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>"
    },
    "name": "drawing_entities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	No
`tag`	No
`name`	Yes
`limit`	No
`offset`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies read-only behavior and it notes optional filtering, but it omits pagination behavior (limit/offset), entity structure, permissions, ordering, and empty/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.

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters and behavior.

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 five-parameter read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the required name, pagination, or return shape, leaving agents with significant gaps.

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%, but the description only addresses ids and tag as optional filters. It says nothing about the required name parameter, limit, or offset, leaving most parameters 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: 'Return entities of a drawing', with optional filtering by ids or tag. It is clear but does not distinguish itself from siblings such as drawing_info, drawing_layers, or jww_query, so it falls short of a 5.

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 retrieving drawing entities and optionally filtering by ids/tag, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives among the many sibling drawing/query tools.

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