Skip to main content
Glama

kernelcad

by com.kernelcad

Add Connector

add_connector

Use this when you need to add a mate connector to a part. Durably insert <partBinding>.connector(name, { type, origin, axis?, normal? }) before the final top-level return. Use the part binding returned by add_part. Returns modified source plus diagnostics from re-evaluation. Side-effect-free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
axisNoOptional [x, y, z] axis.
codeYesThe .kcad.ts source code.
nameYesConnector name unique within the part.
typeYes
normalNoOptional [x, y, z] normal.
originYesOrigin as [x, y, z] shorthand, or a structured ConnectorOrigin.
part_bindingYesJS identifier bound to an AssemblyPartRef, e.g. "basePart".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the edit applied and re-evaluated cleanly.
errorNoFailure message (present when ok is false).
new_codeNoModified .kcad.ts source (present on success). Caller persists it.
diagnosticsNoDiagnostics from re-evaluating the modified source.
binding_nameNoJS const name bound to the new construct (when one was created).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description states 'side-effect-free', matching the destructiveHint=false annotation. Also explains the return value (modified source + diagnostics), adding useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a code snippet. Purpose is front-loaded, and every element is useful with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists (not shown, but indicated), the description adequately covers the return value. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description provides sufficient context for an agent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is high (86%), so baseline is 3. The description provides a code snippet showing parameter usage, but does not add detailed semantics beyond what the schema already describes.

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?

The description clearly states the tool adds a mate connector to a part, with a specific code insertion example. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_constraint or add_feature.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear context for when to use this tool (adding a mate connector to a part) and mentions side-effect-free. However, no explicit comparison or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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

All kernelcad toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct, with clear descriptions for each. However, there is some potential overlap between inspection tools like 'inspect' and 'mesh_summary', and between rendering tools 'render_preview' and 'get_latest_render', which could cause minor confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, making it predictable for an agent to infer functionality.

Tool Count2/5

44 tools is significantly higher than the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the domain is complex, the count feels excessive and could overwhelm an agent.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers an extensive range of CAD operations including creation, inspection, rendering, export, and verification. Minor gaps exist, such as direct sketch editing tools, but overall it is comprehensive.

Resources