Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CDT AutoCAD Provider

CDT AutoCAD Provider

by SlncTrZ
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

hatch_create

Fill a closed planar boundary with a hatch pattern using specified scale, angle, layer, and color. Rejects invalid or unsupported boundaries that are not closed and coplanar.

Instructions

Create a hatch from a closed WCS XY boundary using pattern, scale, and angle in degrees; invalid or unsupported boundaries are refused.

Side-effects: Adds HATCH entity to active space. Disambiguation: Use to fill closed contours; boundary must be closed and coplanar.

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": {
      "boundary_points": "<boundary_points>"
    },
    "name": "hatch_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
angleNoHatch pattern rotation angle in degrees (default: 0.0)
colorNoAutoCAD Color Index (ACI 1-255). Uses ByLayer if omitted
layerNoTarget layer name. Uses active layer if omitted
scaleNoHatch pattern scale factor (default: 1.0)
patternNoHatch pattern name (e.g. 'SOLID', 'ANSI31', 'ANSI32', 'BRICK') (default: 'SOLID')SOLID
boundary_pointsYesList of [X, Y] coordinates defining a closed planar polygon boundary

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / angle / description
      Added value: +"Hatch pattern rotation angle in degrees (default: 0.0)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / boundary_points / description
      Added value: +"List of [X, Y] coordinates defining a closed planar polygon boundary"
    • addedInput schema / properties / color / description
      Added value: +"AutoCAD Color Index (ACI 1-255). Uses ByLayer if omitted"
    • addedInput schema / properties / layer / description
      Added value: +"Target layer name. Uses active layer if omitted"
    • addedInput schema / properties / pattern / description
      Added value: +"Hatch pattern name (e.g. 'SOLID', 'ANSI31', 'ANSI32', 'BRICK') (default: 'SOLID')"
    • addedInput schema / properties / scale / description
      Added value: +"Hatch pattern scale factor (default: 1.0)"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does: it discloses the side-effect ('Adds HATCH entity to active space') and the failure mode (invalid or unsupported boundaries are refused), which the agent cannot infer from structured fields. It doesn't mention transactions/undo or what error surface the refusal produces.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then explicitly labeled 'Side-effects' and 'Disambiguation' blocks. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

For a single-entity creation tool with a full output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers what matters: geometry precondition, side-effect, and refusal behavior. Only the transactional/error-recovery context is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is individually documented with defaults, so the description's mention of pattern/scale/angle adds little beyond orientation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a hatch') plus the key inputs (pattern, scale, angle) and the coordinate context (closed WCS XY boundary). The Disambiguation line ('Use to fill closed contours') separates it from the entity_create_* family, though no hatch-specific sibling exists to contrast against.

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?

Explicitly states the applicability condition ('use to fill closed contours') and the precondition ('boundary must be closed and coplanar'), plus that invalid/unsupported boundaries are refused. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for open or non-coplanar geometry, but the selection context is clear.

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