Skip to main content
Glama
CDT AutoCAD Provider

CDT AutoCAD Provider

drawing_audit

Runs a backend audit on the active document to detect and repair corrupted entity pointers after heavy edits or imports, and returns a machine-readable repair count.

Instructions

Run the backend drawing-audit operation on the active document; live AutoCAD AUDIT may repair content and does not expose a machine-readable repair count.

Side-effects: Runs AutoCAD AUDIT command, fixes corrupted entity pointers. Disambiguation: Use after heavy edits or imports; use drawing_purge to remove unused definitions.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "drawing_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the single readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses the concrete side-effect (fixes corrupted entity pointers) and a meaningful output limitation: no machine-readable repair count is exposed. This directly helps an agent interpret results and understand the operation mutates the drawing.

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?

Three short, labeled clauses (purpose, side-effects, disambiguation) with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence adds information and nothing is redundant.

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?

With no parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and only a single annotation, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly, including the caveat about repair counts. Minor gaps remain (e.g., behavior on failure or reversibility), keeping it just short of perfect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter-documentation burden; baseline of 4 applies. Nothing about calling semantics is obscured.

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+resource: running the backend drawing-audit on the active document, and clarifies that it maps to the live AutoCAD AUDIT command. It explicitly names a sibling (drawing_purge) to distinguish the operation, so an agent can choose it without opening other tools' schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger ('use after heavy edits or imports') and a named alternative with a contrasting purpose ('use drawing_purge to remove unused definitions'). The when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.