Place a point entity in a CAD drawing at given coordinates. Optionally specify color and layer for the point.
Place a POINT entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. | |
| location | Yes | [x, y] or [x, y, z] |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds nothing beyond that: no note that it mutates the active drawing, that a new layer may be created, or that repeated calls pile up duplicate points.
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 clause with zero padding and the resource front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. One sentence does the work, yet it borders on the tautological terseness penalized in the calibration examples.
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?
The tool is simple (one required param), the schema is fully documented, annotations cover the safety profile, and an output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values. However, it omits the mutation and layer-creation side effects that matter for a drawing-modifying tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; both color and layer have rich inline descriptions and location format is documented. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 and resource ('Place a POINT entity'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like draw_line or draw_circle by resource name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from alternatives such as draw_batch when multiple points are needed.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus draw_batch, insert_block, or other entity-creation siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open drawing). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.