Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
jwmcp

jwmcp

by Koheui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

drawing_export

Exports Jw_cad drawings to DXF, 外部変形 text, or JSON, returning the output path for round-trip edits.

Instructions

Export a drawing. format: 'dxf' (open in Jw_cad via ファイル>開く, DXF), 'jwc_temp' (外部変形 text that JWMCP_import.bat feeds into an open Jw_cad drawing), or 'json'. Returns the output path.

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_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outNo
nameYes
formatNodxf

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the return value ('Returns the output path') but says nothing about side effects, whether an existing file is overwritten, where output defaults to when 'out' is omitted, or permission prerequisites for a mutation-style tool.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the verb+resource leads, then the format enumeration, then the return note. Every element contributes; only minor phrasing could be tightened.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description should cover more. It omits semantics for 'name' and 'out' and any behavioral context, leaving an agent under-informed despite the solid format detail.

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%, so the description must compensate and it does partly: it fully documents the important 'format' parameter with three concrete values and their handling. But 'name' and 'out' remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 'Export' and resource 'drawing', and enumerates the concrete format outputs, so the core operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like jww_to_dxf or drawing_import_jww, which an agent must choose between.

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?

The description names the format values but never says when to reach for drawing_export versus the several sibling export/import tools (jww_to_dxf, drawing_import_jww). There is only an implied 'this exports a drawing' usage with no conditions or exclusions.

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