Retrieve an AutoCAD entity's type, layer, color, and geometry using its handle. Use this to inspect drawing objects before editing or verifying CAD data.
Get one entity's type, layer, color and geometry by handle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes |
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that this is a single-record handle lookup and enumerates the returned attributes, which is useful but partly duplicated by the existing output schema.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and the lookup key. Every word earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so the enumerated return fields need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool the definition is nearly sufficient; the remaining gap is the absence of any handle format or error/not-found behavior.
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 0% for the single 'handle' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does convey the parameter's role (identifies which entity to fetch via 'by handle') but gives no format detail such as expected handle syntax, and 'handle' as a bare property name is otherwise unexplained in the schema.
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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('one entity'), and the attributes returned (type, layer, color, geometry) keyed by handle. The singular 'one entity' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_entities, though it never names that alternative explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. The agent must infer from 'one entity by handle' that this is the lookup path when a handle is already known and list_entities is not appropriate; nothing in the text confirms that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.