AutoCAD MCP Pro

by U-C4N

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

Drawing: Finalize (validate + save + screenshot)

drawing_finalize

Destructive

Run full validation and critique checks, then save the drawing, export a screenshot, and return the file path.

Instructions

Premium completion gate: runs BOTH the 8-step validator AND the premium critique focuses (iso128, layer_color, dim_overlap, untrimmed_corner, duplicate_entities, construction_left, gdt, plus the P&ID focuses pid_dangling_line, pid_duplicate_tag, pid_incompatible_connection, pid_untagged_instrument, pid_illegal_tag, pid_unconnected_equipment — silent on a sheet with no P&ID symbols, plus the mechanical focuses mech_missing_centreline, mech_unhatched_section, mech_view_misaligned, mech_duplicate_dimension, mech_thread_unrepresented, mech_bom_balloon_mismatch — silent on a sheet with no mechanical part, plus the architectural focuses arch_room_unlabelled, arch_wall_gap, arch_opening_clash — silent on a sheet with no ACADMCP_ARCH record, plus the topology focuses topo_dangling_endpoint, topo_near_miss, topo_interior_crossing — on network layers no P&ID or architectural focus reads, silent on every sheet this server draws), then saves to disk, exports a screenshot, and returns the DWG path.

Raises ToolError if any validator 'error' finding is present, or if critique reports an 'error' (or, with strict_critique=True, any critique issue). Critique warnings are surfaced under payload['critique'] without failing the gate by default.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`expected`	No	Optional contract: {'part_type', 'helix_angle', 'must_have_bore', 'must_have_keyway'}
`save_path`	No	If given, save drawing here before validation. Pass full path including extension.
`screenshot_path`	No	If given, write PNG screenshot to this path.
`strict_critique`	No	If true, ANY critique issue (including warnings) fails the gate — the full premium discipline. Default false: only critique 'error' issues (e.g. leftover construction geometry) fail; warnings are surfaced in the payload.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.4.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context: runs both validator and critique, lists focus areas, raises ToolError on errors, explains strict_critique behavior, and notes that warnings are surfaced in the payload. This is rich beyond what annotations provide.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Extremely long and run-on, with the core action buried after a massive enumeration of critique focuses. It is not front-loaded; the essential purpose appears in the first sentence but is weighed down by an unnecessary focus list that could be omitted or summarized.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers failure modes and strict mode adequately for an agent to call the tool correctly, though the verbose focus list adds little value and makes the definition harder to parse.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats strict_critique semantics from the schema and only implicitly references save_path/screenshot_path; it adds little meaning beyond the schema for the four parameters.

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?

States specific verbs (validate, save, screenshot) and the resource (drawing finalization), and distinguishes itself as a 'premium completion gate' that combines the 8-step validator and premium critique, unlike siblings such as validation_check or drawing_critique that likely perform only one part. The agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Implies usage as a final completion gate and explains failure conditions and strict_critique behavior, but does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use validation_check for validation only') or state when not to use it. The context is clear, but explicit routing is missing.

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

Deploy Server