Power CAD MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_current_layer

Make a layer current so new entities without an explicit layer are drawn on it. Use it to control default layer assignment in AutoCAD drawings.

Instructions

Make a layer current; new entities without an explicit layer go there.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "set_current_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-readonly, non-destructive mutation, but the description adds important behavioral context: the chosen layer becomes the default target for new entities without an explicit layer. It does not mention persistence, error conditions, or whether the layer must already exist.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Both clauses earn their place by stating the action and its key consequence.

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 mutation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core action and its main side effect. It is nearly complete, though it slightly underspecifies parameter requirements and does not mention scope or error behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'name' parameter. The description only implies that the parameter is a layer name and does not specify constraints such as whether the layer must exist, case sensitivity, or what happens if the name is invalid.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Make a layer current') and clarifies the effect on new entities. However, it does not name or contrast with any sibling tools (e.g., update_layer, create_layer), so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool by stating that new entities without an explicit layer will go to the current layer. It does not provide explicit when-not guidance or mention alternatives like update_layer for changing layer properties.

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