Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AutoCAD MCP Pro

AutoCAD MCP Pro

by U-C4N
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Drawing: Plan (commit intent before drawing)

drawing_plan

Commit a drawing plan before geometry creation to store requirements and ensure consistent CAD workflows.

Instructions

Commit a PlanSpec before any geometry is created.

The PlanSpec is stored on the backend and surfaced for reference during the workflow (it is not replayed as a critique). Always call this FIRST in a premium workflow. With typed requirements.items the plan carries requirement_digest; persist_requirements=True also writes the set into the drawing (requirements_persisted: true) - the server's own XRECORD, shown nowhere in AutoCAD.

Refused: a spec_hash that does not match the latest ready preflight; a malformed typed item, by its path (items[2].target.nominal: must be greater than zero, got -1.0.); persist_requirements=True with neither typed items nor a legacy dimensions object ("nothing to read"). A refusal stores nothing and commits no plan.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoFree-form constraint notes.
scaleNoDrawing scale (1.0 = 1:1, 0.1 = 1:10, etc).
intentYesOne-line description of what this drawing represents.
dim_styleNoDefault dimensioning style: chain / baseline / ordinate / mixed.chain
spec_hashNoHash returned by the latest ready drawing_preflight.
sheet_sizeNoPaper size: A4 / A3 / A2 / A1 / A0.A3
view_countNo
layer_set_idNoLayer set to bootstrap: mech / pid / iso13567.mech
requirementsNoNormalized preflight requirements (typed `items` and/or a legacy `dimensions`).
persist_requirementsNoAlso write the requirement set into the drawing (an ACADMCP_REQUIREMENTS record that travels with the saved file), so a reopened file carries it.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.7.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / persist_requirements
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Also write the requirement set into the drawing (an ACADMCP_REQUIREMENTS record that travels with the saved file), so a reopened file carries it.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / requirements / description
      Previous value: -"Normalized preflight requirements."New value: +"Normalized preflight requirements (typed `items` and/or a legacy `dimensions`)."
  2. First observedv1.4.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the lone destructiveHint annotation: it explains where the plan is stored, that it is 'not replayed as a critique', that persist_requirements writes an ACADMCP_REQUIREMENTS XRECORD visible on reopen, and enumerates three refusal modes with sample error text, noting a refusal commits nothing. This is exactly the side-effect detail an agent needs before mutating a drawing.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative and the ordering rule, then a paragraph on refusals. Dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical about not being replayed as a critique and the sample error string are slightly verbose but justify their space.

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?

For a 10-parameter commit tool with a rich schema and an output schema, the description covers the prerequisite chain, persistence side effects, and all failure modes. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely 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?

Schema coverage is 90%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: requirements.items vs legacy dimensions, the requirement_digest that results from typed items, and the exact refusal condition for spec_hash and for persist_requirements without items. It does not explain sheet_size, layer_set_id, or scale, but those are already documented in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Commit a PlanSpec before any geometry is created') and pins its position in the pipeline ('Always call this FIRST in a premium workflow'). It is clearly distinguishable from drawing_preflight, which it references as the hash-producing predecessor.

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?

Gives a hard ordering rule ('Always call this FIRST') and the prerequisite that spec_hash must come from the latest ready preflight. It stops short of naming when the tool should be skipped (e.g. non-premium workflows), but the context needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools