Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dxf-mcp

dxf-mcp

by OmniZenRaj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_layers

List all layers in a DXF drawing with their colour, linetype, state, and entity count. Use this to inspect layer organization and spot unused or inconsistent layers.

Instructions

List every layer in a drawing with its colour, linetype, state and entity count.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "list_layers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioural disclosure. It clearly identifies this as a read-only listing operation that returns all layers and their attributes. It is brief but sufficient for a non-mutating list tool, although it does not mention edge cases such as empty drawings or drawing permissions.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part of the sentence adds information about the tool's scope and output.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. However, the description does not fully specify the required path parameter, making it only barely complete for invocation; siblings like list_drawings could supply path context but that is not stated.

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?

The schema describes a single required string 'path' with 0% coverage, and the description does not explain what the path should be or how to supply it. The word 'drawing' hints at a file path, but the agent must infer the format and provenance of the path.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' and a concrete resource ('every layer in a drawing'), enumerating the returned attributes (colour, linetype, state, entity count). This makes its purpose immediately distinct from sibling tools such as list_drawings or drawing_summary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended use is implied — call it when you need layer-level details for a drawing — but there is no explicit statement of when to choose it over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites such as first obtaining a path from list_drawings.

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