AutoCAD MCP Pro

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Polar Array

entity_array_polar

Create a circular array of entity copies around a center point in AutoCAD. Specify count, fill angle, and center coordinates to generate the pattern.

Instructions

Create a polar (circular) array of copies around a center point.

count is unbounded, so the same result-shaping applies as for the rectangular array: fields=["handle"] when the geometry is already known.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes	Total number of items in the array
`fields`	No	Project to these fields, in this order (e.g. ['handle','type','layer']); 'properties.<key>' reaches one nested value. Omit for the full record; an unknown name errors and lists the valid ones.
`handle`	Yes	Entity handle to array
`compact`	No	Return a columnar {fields, rows, count, offset, total, truncated, next_offset} envelope instead of dicts: much cheaper per row, and the only shape that reports truncation.
`center_x`	Yes	Array center X
`center_y`	Yes	Array center Y
`fill_angle`	Yes	Total angle to fill in degrees (360 for full circle)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv1.5.1Aug 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / compact

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Return a columnar {fields, rows, count, offset, total, truncated, next_offset} envelope instead of dicts: much cheaper per row, and the only shape that reports truncation.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / fields

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Project to these fields, in this order (e.g. ['handle','type','layer']); 'properties.<key>' reaches one nested value. Omit for the full record; an unknown name errors and lists the valid ones."
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / result / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / result / items

Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "type": "object"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / result / type
```
Removed value: -"array"
```

First observedv1.4.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it notes that count is unbounded and recommends fields=["handle"] when geometry is already known. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, error conditions, or what happens to the original entity beyond calling them "copies."

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides a practical tip, though it assumes familiarity with the rectangular array's "result-shaping" behavior, which slightly reduces self-contained clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a complete input schema and an output schema available, the description does not need to repeat return details. It covers the main operation and a key edge case, but it leaves some behavioral details, such as rotation direction and handling of the original entity, to inference.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that count is unbounded and by giving concrete guidance on the fields parameter, which is not fully captured 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Create a polar (circular) array of copies around a center point." It clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from the rectangular array sibling by explicitly naming the polar/circular geometry.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes the basic use case clear and references the rectangular array's result-shaping behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like entity_array_rectangular or entity_copy. The usage context is implied rather than fully articulated.

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

Deploy Server