AutoCAD MCP Native Bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_block

Create a named local block definition in AutoCAD from up to 50 line, circle, rectangle, or text entities; rejects duplicate block names.

Instructions

Create a named local block definition from 1 to 50 line, circle, rectangle and/or text entities; rejects duplicate names.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "entities": "<entities>"
    },
    "name": "create_block"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`entities`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the duplicate-name rejection and the 1-50 entity limit, but omits what happens on duplicate (error vs overwrite), whether the definition persists in the drawing, required permissions, and what is returned.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the entity constraints and duplicate-name rule. No filler sentences.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers creation semantics and constraints but leaves the return value, persistence/side effects, and error behavior (beyond duplicate names) unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning: 'name' is constrained as a unique non-duplicate identifier and 'entities' is bounded 1-50 with allowed types listed. However, it does not explain entity sub-fields (start/end, center/radius, coordinates), leaving half the schema undocumented in both places.

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 ('Create') plus resource ('named local block definition'), and pins the scope down with the entity types accepted and the 1-50 count range. It is readily distinguishable from insert_block (which places a reference) and list_blocks.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of the sibling tools (insert_block, list_blocks) that an agent would naturally weigh against this one. The only hint is the duplicate-name rejection, which is a constraint rather than usage direction.

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