Retrieve model-space entity handles, DXF types, and layers to identify CAD objects. Use returned handles to perform targeted edits.
List model-space entity handles, DXF types and layers. Use the returned handle for targeted edits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says what fields are returned and hints at downstream edit use, but omits whether this is a safe/read-only operation, how the limit parameter affects results, default behavior, or pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a useful downstream pointer. There is no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives the basic return fields and a reason to call it. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should still clarify the limit behavior and confirm the operation is read-only.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single optional limit parameter is not mentioned at all. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation of the limit's default, maximum, or effect on returned results.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: list model-space entity handles, DXF types, and layers. It is clearly distinguishable from count_modelspace_entities and list_layers, though it does not explicitly name siblings or contrast itself with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Use the returned handle for targeted edits' implies a workflow context, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like count_modelspace_entities, inspect_drawing_geometry, or list_layers. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.