Power CAD MCP

by khs0927

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Hybrid

rotate_entities

Rotate AutoCAD entities about a base point by a specified counterclockwise angle using selected entity handles.

Instructions

Rotate entities about a base point.

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": {
      "handles": "<handles>",
      "base_point": "<base_point>",
      "angle": "<angle>"
    },
    "name": "rotate_entities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`angle`	Yes	Degrees, CCW
`handles`	Yes	Entity handles (hex strings)
`base_point`	Yes	[x, y] or [x, y, z]

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema provide—it does not explain mutation effects, reversibility, or what happens to existing entity geometry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single precise sentence with zero redundancy. The operation is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple transform tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it omits usage context relative to sibling transform tools and does not clarify whether entities are modified in place or copied, leaving minor gaps.

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%, so all three parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description's phrase 'about a base point' maps to the base_point parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Rotate') and resource ('entities') with scope ('about a base point'). It is distinguishable from siblings like move_entities or scale_entities by the verb alone, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_entities, copy_entities, or mirror_entities. The description only states the operation, leaving context and prerequisites to inference.

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