Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
jwmcp

jwmcp

by Koheui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

drawing_info

Retrieve layer, entity, and bounding-box details from a named JWW drawing to inspect its structure before CAD edits.

Instructions

Summary of a drawing (counts, layers, bbox).

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_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only summary operation but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, side effects, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely reads data.

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, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It efficiently lists the key return fields, making it appropriately sized for a simple summary tool.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main return content (counts, layers, bbox). However, it omits what 'name' identifies, how to interpret the output, and any usage context, leaving the definition minimally adequate.

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%, meaning the single required 'name' parameter is not documented in the schema. The description only hints that 'name' refers to a drawing but adds no further meaning (e.g., format, source, or scope), so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific resource (drawing) and the kind of information returned (counts, layers, bbox), so an agent can tell what the tool provides. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like drawing_layers or drawing_entities, 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 Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for invocation. It simply states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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