multiCAD-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

manage_entities

Modify, select, move, rotate, scale, restyle, copy, paste, delete, or measure existing CAD drawing entities, and insert area schedule tables.

Instructions

Modify, select, transform, restyle, compute areas, and manage existing drawing entities.

Behavior:

Mutation: Mutates drawing entities (positions, rotations, layers, colors, attributes).
Destructive Actions: Flag delete|handles as DESTRUCTIVE; permanently deletes specified entity handles from drawing.
Persistence: Geometric modifications persist in drawing database upon save.
Side Effects: copy/paste accesses internal CAD clipboard buffers; area_table creates a new AutoCAD schedule table.

Usage Guidelines:

When to Use: Call to modify existing drawing elements (select, move, rotate, scale, change color/layer, copy, paste, delete, measure area, insert area schedule table).
Sibling Routing / Alternatives:
- For creating new geometry from scratch, use draw_entities.
- For inserting or creating reusable blocks, use manage_blocks.
- For whole-drawing spatial inspection or raycasting without modifying anything, use inspect_drawing.
- For layer lifecycle (create/delete layers, template application), use manage_layers.

Shorthand Grammar (one command per line or semicolon-separated):

select|by|value → select|layer|walls (by: color, layer, type)
move|handles|offset_x|offset_y → move|A1,B2|10|5
rotate|handles|angle|cx|cy → rotate|A1|45|0|0 (angle in degrees)
scale|handles|factor|cx|cy → scale|A1|2.0|0|0
set_color|handles|color → set_color|A1,B2|red
set_layer|handles|layer → set_layer|A1|walls
set_color_bylayer|handles → set_color_bylayer|A1,B2
copy|handles → copy|A1,B2
paste|base_point → paste|100,200
delete|handles → delete|A1,B2 (DESTRUCTIVE)
area|handles → area|A1,B2 (or area|layer|A-ROOMS)
area_table|ins_x,ins_y|layer → area_table|0,0|A-ROOMS|Cuadro Áreas

Parameters:

operations: Shorthand string (one operation per line) or JSON array of entity operation objects.

Returns: JSON string containing per-operation execution results, affected handles, and status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`operations`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that entities are mutated, that delete|handles is DESTRUCTIVE and permanently removes handles, that changes persist on save, and that copy/paste touches internal CAD clipboard buffers while area_table creates a schedule table. It does not cover permissions/auth requirements, undo/rollback, or what happens when one operation in a multi-op batch fails.

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?

The description is long but front-loaded with the purpose and organized under Behavior / Usage Guidelines / Grammar / Parameters headers, and the grammar block earns its length by being the only parameter documentation available. There is mild redundancy, as the operation list in 'When to Use' repeats items already covered by the purpose line and grammar.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief Returns note is sufficient and no return-value detail is owed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage the description supplies the safety and side-effect context an agent needs, though batch atomicity and error/partial-failure semantics remain unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and there is a single parameter, yet the description compensates with a full shorthand grammar including argument order and worked examples for every operation, which the schema does not provide at all. The JSON-array alternative form ('JSON array of entity operation objects') is named but never specified, leaving that half of the parameter contract under-documented.

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 opening sentence states specific verbs (modify, select, transform, restyle, compute areas) and the resource (existing drawing entities), which is precise for a multi-operation tool. It also names the sibling tools it is not (draw_entities, manage_blocks, inspect_drawing, manage_layers), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

There is an explicit 'When to Use' line enumerating the supported operations, plus a dedicated 'Sibling Routing / Alternatives' section that names four alternatives and the exact condition selecting each (create geometry, insert blocks, non-mutating inspection, layer lifecycle). Nothing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server