Power CAD MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_block

Define a new block in AutoCAD by specifying its name, base point, and entity handles. Optionally delete the source entities after creation.

Instructions

Define a new block from existing model-space entities.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "base_point": "<base_point>",
      "handles": "<handles>"
    },
    "name": "create_block"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`handles`	Yes	Entity handles (hex strings)
`base_point`	Yes	[x, y] or [x, y, z]
`delete_source`	No	Remove the source entities after copying them

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, establishing a mutation that is nominally non-destructive. The description says nothing about the copy semantics, nor that delete_source can remove the source entities after copying — a behaviorally significant detail absent from both the description and annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. Its economy is good, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is the source-entity copy/delete behavior and the prerequisite for handles, leaving the description minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 75%, documenting handles ('hex strings'), base_point ('[x, y] or [x, y, z]') and delete_source. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The verb+resource ('Define a new block') is specific and distinguishes creation from sibling insert_block and list_blocks, which deal with existing blocks. However, it never names those siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as insert_block or draw_* tools. It also omits the prerequisite that the referenced entities must already exist in model space, which the agent would have to deduce.

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