AutoCAD MCP Native Bridge

by Yimmingyang

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Local

create_drawing_copy

Creates a full DWG copy of the active drawing at a specified path without modifying or renaming the source.

Instructions

Create a full DWG copy of the active drawing without renaming or modifying the source drawing.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "create_drawing_copy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the source drawing is neither renamed nor modified, which is the key side-effect guarantee. However it is silent on overwrite behavior if the destination exists, permissions, and what the tool returns (no output schema exists), which are meaningful gaps for a file-writing operation.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the non-destructive guarantee front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter. For a tool that writes a file, the description should say where the copy lands and what is returned (e.g., the new file path); neither is covered.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'path', and the description adds nothing about it. It never clarifies whether path is the destination file path, a directory, or a naming template, nor any format constraints (e.g., .dwg extension) — leaving the only parameter's meaning unexplained in both structured and unstructured fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (full DWG copy of the active drawing) plus a scoping constraint that it will not rename or modify the source. It implicitly distinguishes itself from save_active_drawing, but never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With siblings like save_active_drawing, open_drawing and get_active_drawing in the set, the agent is left to infer that this is the non-destructive snapshot path, but the description never states the condition that selects this tool over those alternatives.

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