Skip to main content
Glama
U-C4N
by U-C4N

Measure Entity

analysis_measure_entity
Read-onlyIdempotent

Measure entity area and geometry from a drawing handle, capturing polyline bulges and reporting exactness, closure assumptions, and self-intersections for reliable results.

Instructions

Measure something already in the drawing, by handle.

Reads the real geometry, so polyline bulges (arc edges) are included — reading vertices back and shoelacing them yourself loses 28% of the area on a semicircular edge, silently.

Measurable: LWPOLYLINE, 2D POLYLINE, CIRCLE, ELLIPSE, SPLINE, HATCH, SOLID, TRACE, 3DFACE. REGION and 3DSOLID need the live COM backend (their area is in ACIS data ezdxf cannot evaluate) and refuse with capability: "measure_area_acis". LINE/TEXT/INSERT bound no area on any engine and are a plain error, not a capability gap.

The payload states its own accuracy: exact is false when the shape had to be flattened (then flatten_tolerance says how finely), assumed_closed is true when an open boundary was closed the way AutoCAD's AREA does, and self_intersecting warns when the shoelace cancelled crossed lobes — a bowtie measures 0.0 and that number is worse than useless unflagged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleYesEntity handle (hex string) from create/list/select
flatten_toleranceNoMax chord deviation when geometry has no closed form (splines, partial ellipses)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial context: it reads real geometry including bulges, and it discloses accuracy flags (exact, assumed_closed, self_intersecting) with concrete implications (bowtie measures 0.0). It also clarifies platform dependencies for ACIS-backed entities. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is long but tightly organized and front-loaded with the core action. Every paragraph adds necessary detail: supported types, error semantics, accuracy flags, and parameter implications. The use of paragraphs and explicit terms (exact, assumed_closed, self_intersecting) keeps it scannable without waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple entity types, platform-specific behavior, accuracy nuances), the description is exhaustive. It covers what is measurable, what is not, how errors are surfaced, what accuracy flags mean, and how flatten_tolerance affects results. The output schema presumably details return fields, so no need to explain them in text.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% parameter coverage, but the description enriches this by explaining flatten_tolerance's role in accuracy (how finely a shape is flattened and when it applies). It also ties handle to 'from create/list/select' in the schema, and the description clarifies that the measurement itself depends on the handle's entity. This goes beyond a bare baseline.

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 opens with 'Measure something already in the drawing, by handle,' which is a specific verb + resource + method. It then enumerates measurable entity types and contrasts with unsupported ones, making the tool's purpose and scope unmistakable. It also differentiates from siblings like analysis_measure_area by emphasizing handle-based measurement and including details about geometry accuracy.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use (you have a handle and want to measure a supported entity) and when-not-to-use guidance: REGION and 3DSOLID refuse with a capability gap flag, and LINE/TEXT/INSERT yield a plain error. It also references a manual alternative (shoelacing vertices) and explains why this tool is superior, giving clear decision support.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/U-C4N/Autocad-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server