Get the current state of the active CAD document, optionally including its tree and items, to inspect and verify model conditions.
Read bounded active-document state through the primitive operation pipeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_items | No | ||
| document_id | No | ||
| include_tree | No | ||
| include_items | No | ||
| require_active_document | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Read', implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose that it returns bounded results (max_items), whether it requires an active document (require_active_document defaults true), or what the 'primitive operation pipeline' involves. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it wastes its brevity on the opaque phrase 'primitive operation pipeline' instead of explaining the tool's actual behavior. It is not verbose, but the short length does not compensate for the jargon and missing information.
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?
Given five parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, this one-liner is severely incomplete. It does not describe return values, parameter roles, or the meaning of 'bounded state', leaving the agent unable to call this tool confidently in most scenarios.
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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter semantics. None of the five parameters (max_items, document_id, include_tree, include_items, require_active_document) are explained. The word 'bounded' hints at max_items but is too vague to count as meaningful guidance.
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?
The description states a verb and resource ('Read bounded active-document state') but the modifiers 'bounded' and 'primitive operation pipeline' are undefined jargon. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_document_tree, get_items, or get_session_state, which also read document/session state.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for the active document, how it relates to get_document_tree or get_items, or any conditions for choosing it. With a large sibling list, this is a significant omission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.