Create, insert, redefine, or import AutoCAD blocks from selected entities or DWG files, with base point, scale, rotation, and attribute controls.
Create a block definition from entities, insert a block, redefine it, or import a DWG as a block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| scale | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| rotation | No | ||
| basePoint | No | ||
| attributes | No | ||
| sourcePath | No | ||
| deleteSource | No | ||
| sourceHandles | No | ||
| insertionPoint | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: nothing about what redefining an existing block does to prior insertions, what happens to source entities after create, or whether deleteSource actually deletes files.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its modes, with no filler. The brevity is only mildly under-specified rather than wasteful.
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?
A 10-parameter, multi-mode mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema needs substantially more than a single sentence. The agent cannot tell which parameters are required per action or what the tool returns, so the definition is incomplete for correct invocation.
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% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it does not. Only indirect hints appear ('from entities' → sourceHandles, 'import a DWG' → sourcePath); scale, rotation, basePoint, insertionPoint, attributes, and deleteSource are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific resource (block) and enumerates the operations it performs (create definition, insert, redefine, import DWG). An agent can tell it deals with block definitions rather than raw geometry, though it never differentiates itself from siblings like cad_draw or cad_edit.
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?
It lists four operations but gives no condition for choosing among them, no mapping of operations to parameters, and no guidance on when to use cad_block versus cad_draw/cad_edit. Worse, 'redefine' is named in prose but absent from the action enum, leaving the agent unsure which action value achieves it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.