Extract a compact summary from .jww drawings, including version, paper, layer groups, entity counts, bounding box, and text sample for CAD inspection.
Open a .jww file and return a compact summary: version, paper, layer groups with scale (1/N) and layer names/counts, entity counts by type, bounding box (real mm), text sample.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return content in useful detail (including that the bounding box is in real mm), which substitutes for the missing output schema, but it says nothing about side effects, whether the file is modified, or failure modes such as a missing/corrupt .jww file. Read-only behavior is only inferable from 'return a compact summary'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence: action first ('Open a .jww file and return a compact summary'), then a tight colon-delimited list of returned fields. No filler, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the description does the work the absent output schema would otherwise do by enumerating the summary fields. What is missing is failure/error behavior and any path expectations, which for a file-opening tool is a real but modest gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required 'path' parameter. The description only implies that path identifies a .jww file; it does not state expected format (relative vs absolute), whether the file must exist, or any constraint. Minimal added value over the bare string schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (open) and resource (.jww file) plus an explicit, enumerated summary scope: version, paper, layer groups with scale, entity counts, bounding box, text sample. That enumeration naturally separates it from jww_texts (text extraction), jww_preview (rendering) and jww_query, so an agent can route without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: the description makes clear this is the metadata/summary inspection tool, so an agent knows the general context in which to reach for it. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to alternatives like jww_query or drawing_info for deeper inspection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.