Retrieve available block definitions for insertion into AutoCAD drawings, so you can choose a valid block before calling insert_block.
List block definitions available for insert_block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, fully covering the safety and side-effect profile of this call. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, but with zero parameters and a trivial read, there is little else to disclose and nothing is contradicted.
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 short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and resource and placing the downstream use case immediately after. Nothing to trim.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the no-param schema keeps invocation simple. It would be marginally stronger if it stated whether the listing includes blocks from external references, but it is essentially complete for this call.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies an unfiltered enumeration by not mentioning any filtering or scoping arguments.
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 (List) and resource (block definitions), and explicitly ties the output to its consumer, insert_block. It's clearly distinguishable from list_layers and list_entities by resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with create_block, which also deals with blocks.
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?
The phrase 'available for insert_block' implies the natural workflow (list before inserting), giving implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any naming of an alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.