AutoCAD MCP

autocad_list_layers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve every layer in the active drawing with its color and linetype. Use this to inspect or validate layer settings before editing CAD documents.

Instructions

List all layers in the active drawing with their color and linetype.

Returns: str: JSON {"count", "layers": [{"name", "color", "linetype"}, ...]}.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "autocad_list_layers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added behavior is the return shape, which largely duplicates the output schema. No pagination or scoping caveats are mentioned, so it stays at baseline.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The 'Returns' block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it costs little and does not bury the main point.

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 no-argument, read-only listing tool with annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema documenting the return, the description is essentially complete. The only minor redundancy is restating the return format already captured by the output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule. Nothing in the schema needs explaining, and the description does not introduce phantom parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (all layers in the active drawing) plus the returned fields (color, linetype). It is trivially distinguishable from mutation siblings like autocad_create_layer or autocad_delete_layer.

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 intent is implied by 'list all layers', which for a zero-param read tool makes the use case fairly obvious. However, it never states when to reach for this versus siblings such as autocad_get_document_info or autocad_query_entities, and there are no explicit exclusions.

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

Deploy Server