Retrieve the active document's name, file, unit (mm), object count, layers, and overall bounds. Quickly understand the current project's structure and extents.
Active document: name, file, unit (mm), object count, layers and overall bounds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool reports on the active document and enumerates the returned fields, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error conditions, or what happens when no active document exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the key concept 'Active document' and then efficiently lists the output fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the active-document context and enumerates the main returned data. It doesn't explain how the active document is determined or error behavior, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds helpful context about what the tool returns even though no parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as returning information about the active document and lists the specific contents: name, file, unit, object count, layers, and bounds. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' and doesn't differentiate itself from sibling getters such as get_layers or get_bounds, but the resource and purpose are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to call get_document versus sibling tools like get_layers, get_bounds, or get_objects. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives, so an agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.