Extract text strings from .jww drawings, including room names, dimensions, and notes, with position, layer, and size. Filter results by pattern or layer to inspect CAD annotations.
List all text strings of a .jww (room names, dimensions, notes) with position, layer and size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lg | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| pattern | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, what happens with empty files, or any permission requirements. A read-only list operation is likely, but not stated.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Efficient, though it packs return-field detail into a tool-definition slot where parameter documentation would be more valuable.
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?
For a 4-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should at minimum explain path, limit, pattern, and lg, and indicate the operation's safety profile.
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%, so the description must document the four parameters, but it only alludes to a subset via 'position, layer and size' – which are return fields, not parameters. The params path, lg, limit, and pattern go entirely unexplained.
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 (list) and resource (text strings of a .jww file), plus examples of content types (room names, dimensions, notes). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling scan_texts or jww_query, but the .jww-specific scope is clear.
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 implied by the verb and scope, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. jww_query, scan_texts, or drawing_entities. The agent must infer the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.