Retrieve active Vectorworks document details—name, path, units, active layer and class, object counts, and selection size—to confirm your drawing context before editing.
Active document: name, path, units, active layer/class, counts, selection size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real value by enumerating the returned payload, which matters because no output schema exists — the agent learns it gets path, units, active layer/class, counts and selection size. It stops short of clarifying what 'counts' actually counts.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler — the resource leads and the reported fields follow as a compact list. Every element earns its place.
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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the field enumeration covers most of what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. The one soft spot is the vague 'counts' entry, which leaves the return payload partially underspecified.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is also 100%.
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 names a specific resource (the active document) and enumerates what it reports — name, path, units, active layer/class, counts, selection size. That distinguishes it from siblings like vw_list_layers or vw_get_selection, which drill into single categories, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites or alternatives, and no indication of when a sibling such as vw_get_selection or vw_list_layers would be the better call. The agent must infer usage entirely from the field list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.