Validate CAD drawing files against company or industry standards such as ISO, ANSI, or DIN. Checks title blocks and sheet formats to flag compliance issues.
Check drawing compliance with company standards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input_data | Yes | The input data value. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The minimal text does not reveal if the tool modifies files, requires a model to be open, what the output contains, or any side effects. This is insufficient for trustful agent invocation.
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?
The description is excessively concise (one sentence) at the expense of informativeness. It fails to provide essential details that would justify its length. A few more sentences could significantly improve clarity without making it verbose.
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?
Given the nested input schema and presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what compliance checks are performed, expected inputs format, or output structure. With no annotations, the description must compensate but does not.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter roles or provide examples. However, the schema already documents parameters adequately, so no deduction.
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 'Check drawing compliance with company standards' indicates a verb and resource but lacks specificity. It doesn't mention which standards or what aspects of compliance are checked, and fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'check_drawing_standards' and 'analyze_drawing_comprehensive'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support among similar drawing analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.