CDT AutoCAD Provider

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

system_capabilities

Read-only

Query a read-only backend capability map before CAD mutations to confirm supported AutoCAD operations and plan side-effect-free calls.

Instructions

Return the backend capability map used to plan calls before side effects; this tool has no CAD side effects.

Side-effects: None. Read-only capability query. Disambiguation: Use system_capabilities before calling mutations to check supported CAD operations.

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": "system_capabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description repeats that this tool is read-only with no side effects. It adds the useful planning context of checking capabilities before mutations, but does not disclose anything further about the capability map's contents, freshness, or scope beyond what the annotation already establishes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The key purpose is front-loaded and the disambiguation sentence earns its place. However, the no-side-effects message is repeated across 'no CAD side effects,' 'Side-effects: None,' and 'Read-only capability query,' making the description more redundant than necessary.

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?

This is a simple, parameterless tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, so most structural context is already covered. The description supplies purpose and usage guidance, though it could be slightly richer about what the capability map contains for planning.

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?

With zero parameters and full schema coverage, there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies cleanly.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Return the backend capability map.' It clearly frames the tool as a read-only planning aid before mutations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby informational siblings such as system_status or help.

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?

It gives an explicit usage condition: use system_capabilities before calling mutations to check supported CAD operations. It does not state alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the intended 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