Power CAD MCP

by khs0927

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Hybrid

open_drawing

Loads an existing .dwg or .dxf drawing by file path and makes it the active drawing for editing.

Instructions

Open an existing drawing and make it active.

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": "open_drawing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path to a .dwg/.dxf file

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 readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=false. The description adds one piece of behavioral context beyond them: the call mutates session state by making the drawing active. It does not disclose whether an already-active drawing with unsaved changes is discarded, nor what happens on a missing/invalid path.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler, well matched to a one-parameter tool. It is arguably terse for a state-changing operation, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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 explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a simple 1-param tool the description is nearly complete; the only real omission is how an already-open/active drawing is handled.

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 description coverage is 100%: the schema already documents the single required 'path' parameter as 'Path to a .dwg/.dxf file'. The description adds no format, resolution, or relative-vs-absolute path guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Open an existing drawing and make it active.' The word 'existing' implicitly contrasts with the sibling new_drawing, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema. It falls short of 5 only because no sibling is named explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., new_drawing), no prerequisites, and no note about what happens to the currently active drawing. Usage is only faintly implied by 'make it active'. This is essentially no guidance.

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