Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CDT AutoCAD Provider

CDT AutoCAD Provider

by SlncTrZ
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

block_create

Copy existing drawing objects into a named reusable block definition around a WCS base point, leaving source objects in place; creates the definition only, not an inserted instance.

Instructions

Create a named block definition by copying the specified existing objects around a WCS base point; source objects remain in their original space.

Side-effects: Creates BLOCK definition; original objects remain in space. Disambiguation: Creates reusable definition; does not insert an instance.

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>",
      "object_ids": "<object_ids>"
    },
    "name": "block_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesUnique block definition name
base_xNoBlock origin base point X in WCS drawing units (default: 0.0)
base_yNoBlock origin base point Y in WCS drawing units (default: 0.0)
object_idsYesList of existing drawing entity IDs to copy into the block

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / base_x / description
      Added value: +"Block origin base point X in WCS drawing units (default: 0.0)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / base_y / description
      Added value: +"Block origin base point Y in WCS drawing units (default: 0.0)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"Unique block definition name"
    • addedInput schema / properties / object_ids / description
      Added value: +"List of existing drawing entity IDs to copy into the block"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotation coverage is thin (readOnlyHint=false only), but the description carries meaningful weight itself: it discloses that this is a copy-based mutation and that source objects remain in their original space, which an agent could not infer from the annotations. It does not state behavior on duplicate names or error conditions, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines with labeled side-effects and disambiguation, easy to scan. Minor waste: the source-objects persistence is stated twice, once in the first sentence and again in the side-effects line.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and required parameters plus defaults are covered by the schema. The description covers the mutation's key consequence (originals retained) but omits failure behavior such as name collisions on a 'unique block definition name'.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (name, base_x, base_y, object_ids) are already fully documented with defaults and units. The description only restates that objects are copied and a WCS base point is used, adding no semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a named block definition by copying the specified existing objects around a WCS base point') and adds a scope detail about the source objects. The disambiguation line explicitly separates it from inserting an instance, which is the main confusable sibling (block_insert).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The disambiguation line clearly frames the choice: this tool creates a reusable definition and does not insert an instance, implicitly routing instance placement to block_insert. There is no explicit 'use when' clause or prerequisite note, so it falls just short of a 5.

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