CDT AutoCAD Provider

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

system_status

Read-only

Check AutoCAD provider runtime health and connection status, including AutoCAD version, transport, and generation metadata for troubleshooting.

Instructions

Report provider runtime status, AutoCAD version/progid, transport, and generation metadata.

Side-effects: None. Read-only status query. Disambiguation: Use system_status to verify CAD connection and process health; use system_capabilities to inspect supported 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_status"
  }
}

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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Side-effects: None. Read-only status query' largely restates that. It adds modest value by naming the reported fields (transport, generation metadata), but discloses nothing about failure modes, connection-error behavior, or cost/latency that annotations don't already cover.

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 sentences with no wasted prose, and the disambiguation is placed where an agent will see it. The minor redundancy between 'Side-effects: None' and 'Read-only status query' costs it a point.

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

Completeness5/5

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

A zero-parameter, read-only query with an output schema that already documents return values. Purpose, safety profile, and sibling routing are all covered, so nothing an agent needs in order to call it is missing.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty input schema.

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 a specific verb (Report) with a clearly bounded resource (provider runtime status) and enumerates the contents: AutoCAD version/progid, transport, generation metadata. It is immediately distinguishable from system_capabilities, which the description names explicitly.

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?

An explicit Disambiguation section states when to use this tool (verify CAD connection and process health) and names the alternative (system_capabilities) for inspecting supported operations. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs with dozens of siblings.

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

Deploy Server