Skip to main content
Glama
agtmwebtoon

autocad-mcp

by agtmwebtoon

entity

Create, query, and modify AutoCAD entities. Manage lines, circles, polylines, and more with operations for listing, counting, moving, copying, rotating, scaling, and erasing.

Instructions

Entity creation, querying, and modification.

Create operations: create_line — x1, y1, x2, y2, layer? create_circle — data: {cx, cy, radius}, layer? create_polyline — points: [[x,y],...], data: {closed?}, layer? create_rectangle — x1, y1, x2, y2, layer? create_arc — data: {cx, cy, radius, start_angle, end_angle}, layer? create_ellipse — data: {cx, cy, major_x, major_y, ratio}, layer? create_mtext — data: {x, y, width, text, height?}, layer? create_hatch — entity_id, data: {pattern?}

Read operations: list — layer? → list entities count — layer? → count entities get — entity_id → entity details

Modify operations: copy — entity_id, data: {dx, dy} move — entity_id, data: {dx, dy} rotate — entity_id, data: {cx, cy, angle} scale — entity_id, data: {cx, cy, factor} mirror — entity_id, x1, y1, x2, y2 offset — entity_id, data: {distance} array — entity_id, data: {rows, cols, row_dist, col_dist} fillet — data: {id1, id2, radius} chamfer — data: {id1, id2, dist1, dist2} erase — entity_id

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
x1No
x2No
y1No
y2No
dataNo
layerNo
pointsNo
entity_idNo
operationYes
include_screenshotNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that the tool performs create, query, and modify operations, and lists specific operations including destructive ones like 'erase'. However, it lacks deeper behavioral context such as coordinate system, units, side effects on existing entities, or return format. The annotation readOnlyHint=false is consistent with the modification operations, so there is no contradiction, but the description adds only moderate transparency beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is well-organized into Create, Read, and Modify sections with a compact bullet-list format. Every operation line is informative and directly maps to usage. It is long but appropriately so given the tool's breadth, and it avoids redundant explanations. The opening line fronts the core purpose, and the structure enables quick scanning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (many operations, 10 parameters), the description covers all operations and their parameter needs comprehensively. An output schema exists, so return values are not required here. However, it omits mention of the 'include_screenshot' parameter and lacks details on operation semantics (e.g., what 'fillet' or 'offset' does beyond its name). Minor gaps, but overall sufficient for a multi-operation dispatcher.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by mapping each operation to its required parameters, e.g., 'create_line — x1, y1, x2, y2, layer?' and 'create_circle — data: {cx, cy, radius}, layer?'. This gives meaning to generic schema fields like 'data' and 'points'. However, it does not explain the full semantics of each parameter (e.g., what 'data' means for fillet vs. scale), leaving some room for interpretation.

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?

The description clearly states 'Entity creation, querying, and modification' and then breaks down into create, read, and modify operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like layer, drawing, and block, which focus on other domain aspects. The title annotation 'AutoCAD Entity Operations' reinforces the scope, though the tool is a broad dispatcher rather than a single focused action.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists operations but does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify when to use 'entity' versus 'drawing' or 'block' for related tasks. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/agtmwebtoon/autocad-validation-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server