Skip to main content
Glama

list_technical_drawings

Read-only

Lists dimensioned technical drawings you've made, newest first; filter by design ID to view one design's drawings.

Instructions

List the dimensioned drawings this person has made, newest first.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_technical_drawings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
design_idNoList one design's drawings; empty lists all. Default: "".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / design_id / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"List one design's drawings; empty lists all. Default: \"\"."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuine behavioral facts beyond them: the result set is scoped to the caller's own drawings and is sorted newest first. It says nothing about result limits, pagination, or what a drawing record contains.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and ordering come before any optional detail. Minor ambiguity in 'this person', which could mean the authenticated user or a referenced individual, keeps it from a 5.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it establishes scope, ordering, and the listing behavior. Only the shape of returned drawing records is left unstated, which is a small gap.

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% and the single parameter's description already explains that an empty value lists all drawings. The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail for design_id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource: lists dimensioned technical drawings scoped to a person, ordered newest first. That distinguishes it clearly from generate_technical_drawing and intake_engineering_drawing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'this person has made' and by the schema note that an empty design_id lists all, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternative listing tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools