Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
jwmcp

jwmcp

by Koheui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

drawing_layers

Set or rename layer groups, layers, and scales in a drawing. Organize CAD layers for architectural or piping plans.

Instructions

Set/rename layer groups, layers and scales of a drawing. group_names={'0':'平面'}, layer_names={'0-1':'壁'}, group_scales={'1':'50'}.

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_layers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
group_namesNo
layer_namesNo
group_scalesNo

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 at all, so the description carries full burden. It does not state whether this mutates the drawing permanently, requires an open drawing, or is reversible. No mention of auth, side effects, or what happens to existing layers.

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?

Very compact, front-loads the action and then gives concrete parameter examples. Slightly cryptic because the example object syntax is unexplained, but no 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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and no explanation of the required 'name' parameter or return value. Only the optional parameter examples are given, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides example values for three of the four parameters, showing key formats ('0','0-1','1') which is helpful. However, the required 'name' parameter is never explained, and the examples do not clarify whether keys are IDs or indices.

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 ('Set/rename') and resource ('layer groups, layers and scales of a drawing'). Distinguishes itself from siblings like drawing_update and drawing_entities by targeting the layer hierarchy. Not fully differentiated from drawing_update but the layer-specific focus is clear.

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 vs drawing_update, drawing_new, or preset tools. Nothing indicates prerequisites like whether the drawing must already be open or imported first.

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