Locate drawing elements by exact ID or type and case-sensitive text substring, excluding deleted items. Apply AND filters with pagination for precise results.
AND filters: exact id/type and case-sensitive literal text substring. Excludes deleted elements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| drawingId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: AND combination, exact matching for id/type, case-sensitive literal substring for text, and exclusion of deleted elements. It still omits read-only safety, pagination behavior, authorization needs, and return format, so it is partly but not fully transparent.
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?
The description is a single compact statement, front-loaded with the filter semantics and the deleted-element exclusion. Every phrase contributes directly to invocation behavior, with no redundant or filler content.
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 6-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits the required drawingId context, pagination behavior for limit/offset, read-only nature, and any indication of what is returned, so an agent lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.
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 compensate. It adds useful semantics for id, type, and text, including exact-match and case-sensitive substring behavior plus AND combination. However, it does not explain the required drawingId parameter or the limit/offset pagination parameters, leaving half the parameters without added meaning.
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?
The name and description imply a search over elements, and the filter semantics ('AND filters: exact id/type and case-sensitive literal text substring') are specific. However, the description never states what resource is being searched or that it operates within a drawing, leaving the core purpose vaguer than it should be and failing to clearly distinguish it from siblings like inspect_drawing_element.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_drawing_element or get_drawing. It describes filtering behavior and excludes deleted elements, but provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.