Get exact geometry of a named object in global mm coordinates, including points, length, area, arc/circle center, radius, angles, or block components.
Exact geometry of one object: points/length/area (polyline), center/radius/angles (arc, circle) or components (block), in global mm coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| 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 burden. It discloses the output scope (exact geometry, global mm coordinates) and the type-dependent return structure, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the object must exist, what happens if the name is invalid, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value: the object types and their respective geometry fields are specified, and the coordinate system is stated. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool has a single parameter and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It explains what geometry is returned for each object type and the coordinate system. The only minor gap is the lack of error behavior or name format details, but for a simple getter with an output schema, this is sufficient.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the single parameter 'name' identifies the object whose geometry is returned, and it clarifies the output format per object type. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify the exact string format for 'name' (e.g., object ID vs. user label).
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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('object geometry'), and enumerates exactly what geometry is returned for each object type (points/length/area for polylines, center/radius/angles for arcs/circles, components for blocks) in global mm coordinates. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bounds or get_objects.
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?
The description implies when to use it: when you need exact geometric details of a single object. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_bounds for bounding boxes or get_objects for listing objects. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.