AutoCAD MCP Native Bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

move_entity

Translates a single CAD entity, identified by its handle, by a specified XYZ offset in drawing units. Use it to reposition objects precisely within an AutoCAD drawing.

Instructions

Move one entity by handle by the given XYZ offset in drawing units.

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": {
      "handle": "<handle>",
      "dx": "<dx>",
      "dy": "<dy>"
    },
    "name": "move_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dx`	Yes
`dy`	Yes
`dz`	No
`handle`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It conveys the offset semantics ('in drawing units') and single-entity scope, but says nothing about whether the drawing must be open/active, whether the move is permanent or reversible, or how invalid handles are handled.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero waste and the action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though dense enough that units and identifier semantics are folded together without differentiation.

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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. An agent still lacks preconditions (active drawing), the meaning of dz optionality, and post-move state, leaving notable 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps handle to entity identity and 'XYZ offset' to dx/dy/dz, which covers all four parameters in spirit, but adds no handle format, no distinction that dz is optional, and no per-axis units detail beyond 'drawing units.'

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 (move) and resource (one entity), plus the mechanism (by handle, via XYZ offset in drawing units). An agent can distinguish it from delete_entity and set_entity_layer, though no sibling is named or ruled out.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as moving via a transform tool. The only implicit constraint is 'one entity,' which does not tell an agent when to choose this over other manipulation tools.

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