Power CAD MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

draw_circle

Creates a circle in an AutoCAD drawing from center coordinates and radius, with optional layer, color, and linetype settings for controlled geometry.

Instructions

Draw a circle.

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": {
      "center": "<center>",
      "radius": "<radius>"
    },
    "name": "draw_circle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`color`	No	ACI 0-256 or name (red, yellow, green, cyan, blue, magenta, white, bylayer)
`layer`	No	Target layer (created if missing). Default: current layer.
`center`	Yes	[x, y] or [x, y, z]
`radius`	Yes
`linetype`	No	Linetype name, e.g. CONTINUOUS, DASHED, CENTER, HIDDEN

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare it a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement about required drawing state, whether the circle is drawn on the current layer by default, or what happens on invalid radius/center.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded clause with zero padding, so it is structurally clean. The brevity is under-specification rather than genuine efficiency, which caps it below a 4.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a geometry-creation tool this is too thin: no coordinate system or unit context, no dependency on an open drawing, and no routing among the many draw_* siblings. The output schema does excuse it from explaining return values, but the input-side context is missing.

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 80% and the schema itself documents color, layer, center, and linetype well, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, but it also isn't needed to compensate for large gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Draw a circle" names a verb and resource, but it is a verbatim restatement of the tool name draw_circle and adds no distinguishing scope. It gives no way to tell it apart from siblings like draw_arc, draw_ellipse, or draw_polygon.

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, no preconditions (e.g. an open drawing being required), and no mention of alternatives such as draw_arc or draw_batch. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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