Skip to main content
Glama
barbosaihan

Civil3D MCP Server

by barbosaihan
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: civil3d_execute for modifying drawings, civil3d_query for read-only queries, and civil3d_skills for browsing code templates. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools follow a consistent 'civil3d_' prefix pattern with an action word. Two use verbs (execute, query) and one uses a noun (skills), which is a minor inconsistency, but the naming remains predictable and clear.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of executing C# code in Civil 3D. Each tool serves a necessary role: write access, read access, and skill templates. No extraneous tools.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the core operations for the meta-domain of code execution (read, write, and reference templates). However, it relies on the agent to write code for specific Civil 3D operations, so domain-specific completeness is limited but acceptable for the stated purpose.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations, but description covers transaction context, available globals, auto-imports, and JSON return. Good disclosure of execution environment, though lacks error handling details.

    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?

    Four concise sentences, each providing unique value. Front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words.

    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?

    Comprehensive for a code execution tool: covers purpose, transaction, globals, return format, and modification scope. Absence of output schema mitigated by description of JSON return.

    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 covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). Description reinforces code purpose with example but adds limited new semantic value beyond schema descriptions.

    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?

    Clearly states verb 'Execute' and resource 'C# code in Civil 3D'. Distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing write access and modification, contrasting with query tool.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    Explicitly states when to use: 'for operations that MODIFY the drawing'. Implies not for read-only, but could be more explicit about not using for queries.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description is the sole source. It explains the three actions and their purposes, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, pagination, or authentication needs. Adequate but not detailed.

    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?

    Two sentences with clear front-loading of purpose and actions. No filler or redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

    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?

    For a simple browse tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential actions and their usage. It could optionally clarify category usage with list, but overall it is complete enough.

    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 100% with individual parameter descriptions. The description adds context (e.g., list = show all skills) but does not significantly augment the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

    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?

    Description clearly states 'Browse and read Civil 3D code skills' and lists three specific actions (list, search, get) with brief explanations. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on browsing/reading versus execution/query.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Explicitly mentions that skills are 'pre-built C# patterns you can adapt and execute via civil3d_execute or civil3d_query', providing clear when-to-use vs alternatives.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states READ-ONLY mode and lists available globals (Document, CivilDoc, Database, Transaction, Editor) and notes that all Civil 3D namespaces are auto-imported. It also explains how to return results as JSON. However, it does not mention error handling, performance implications, or any limitations.

    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 concise with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the read-only mode, listing globals, and providing usage guidance. There is no redundant or unnecessary information.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the tool's complexity (code execution) and single parameter, the description covers all needed aspects: read-only guarantee, available globals, auto-imported namespaces, and how to return results. No output schema exists, but the description explains the JSON return format. It is complete for safe and correct usage.

    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?

    There is only one parameter 'code' with a schema description that includes an example. The description adds value by specifying the available globals and auto-imported namespaces, which are not in the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, but the added context justifies a 4.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool executes C# code in Civil 3D in READ-ONLY mode, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing read-only querying vs. execution, and the sibling names (civil3d_execute, civil3d_skills) further clarify the differentiation.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description explicitly says 'Use this for querying data: listing objects, getting properties, analyzing surfaces, etc.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the READ-ONLY mode and sibling names imply it is not for modifications. A small gap in not naming the alternative directly.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

civil3d-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

civil3d-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/barbosaihan/civil3d-mcp'

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