Export Rhino geometry to DXF format by specifying a file path, optionally restricting to selected object IDs or the active document.
Export to DXF (bridge required).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=false is consistent with a file-writing export operation, so there is no contradiction. The description adds the 'bridge required' environmental prerequisite, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it discloses nothing about side effects such as overwriting an existing file at the target path or failure behavior when the bridge is unavailable.
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 short sentence with zero filler and the core information (verb, format, prerequisite) front-loaded. There is no wasted wording.
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?
For a tool with 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, a required path parameter, a write-operation annotation, and roughly a dozen export-format siblings, this description is too thin. It omits what path means, what scope is exported by default, and how to choose this over other export tools, so an agent would have to make unsupported assumptions.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it says nothing about path, doc_id, or object_ids. The required 'path' parameter is left entirely undocumented in both the schema and description, so an agent cannot know what to supply for it.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Export to DXF'. The format name itself distinguishes it from sibling export tools like rhino_export_obj, rhino_export_stl, rhino_export_step, and rhino_export_iges. However, it doesn't clarify what gets exported (active document vs. selection), which is partly left to the object_ids parameter to imply.
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?
No guidance is given on when to choose DXF over the many sibling export tools (obj, stl, step, iges, ifc, gbxml), nor are any alternatives or exclusions named. The parenthetical '(bridge required)' is a precondition for using the tool, not guidance for selecting among alternatives, so it contributes nothing to tool-selection decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.