Generate rack CAD deliverables as 2D elevation and wiring SVG, Markdown BOM, 3D GLB, plus optional carrier SCAD/STL files, writing outputs to a chosen directory.
Generate 2D elevation SVG, orthogonal wiring schematic SVG, Markdown BOM, and 3D GLB deliverables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| formats | No | Deliverable formats to export. | |
| output_dir | No | Optional target directory where deliverable files will be written. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation, but the description adds nothing about what is written to disk, where, whether existing files are overwritten, or what happens if output_dir is omitted. For a file-emitting mutation tool with only a bare readOnlyHint, this leaves the behavioral profile under-disclosed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, the terseness comes at the cost of leaving out two supported formats and any mention of the output directory.
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?
For a file-writing tool with no output schema, the description should signal the return shape (e.g. list of written paths) and write/overwrite semantics but does neither. Combined with the incomplete format enumeration, an agent cannot fully anticipate the effect of calling it.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented structurally, giving a baseline of 3. The description lists four of the six format options (omitting carrier-scad and carrier-stl) and says nothing about output_dir, so it adds only partial meaning beyond the schema.
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 verb (generate/export) and enumerates the resource types produced (elevation SVG, wiring SVG, BOM Markdown, GLB). An agent can tell this is the output-generation step versus sibling tools like validate_rack or get_device_blueprint. It stops short of naming itself as the terminal step in the workflow.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus siblings, or what prerequisites exist (e.g. must a rack be defined/mounted/validated first). The implied position at the end of a design workflow is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.