Power CAD MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

export_drawing

Export AutoCAD drawings to PDF, DWG, DXF, PNG, BMP, or WMF; use headless mode for DXF, PNG, PDF, or SVG when AutoCAD is unavailable.

Instructions

Export the drawing: AutoCAD → pdf/dwg/dxf/png/bmp/wmf; headless → dxf/png/pdf/svg.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "export_drawing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`format`	No	Defaults to the path's extension

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful backend-to-format availability mapping, but says nothing about whether an existing file is overwritten, where the export lands, or what path semantics are — meaningful gaps for a file-writing tool.

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 the verb first and no wasted words; the arrow notation packs the format lists compactly. It is slightly cryptic/abbreviated, but earns its brevity.

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 described. For a 2-parameter export tool the description covers format availability adequately but leaves the path parameter's role and file-overwrite behavior unaddressed.

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 50%: format has a schema description ('Defaults to the path's extension') while path is undocumented. The description adds value by narrowing which formats are valid per backend (e.g., headless lacks dwg/bmp/wmf), but does not clarify whether path is the input drawing or the output destination.

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?

States a specific verb (Export) and resource (the drawing) and enumerates the output formats supported, so an agent immediately knows what the tool produces. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like save_drawing or render_preview, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The backend/format mapping hints at a condition (AutoCAD vs headless mode) but is a capability constraint rather than a directive on when to pick this tool over save_drawing or render_preview.

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