Skip to main content
Glama

kernelcad

by com.kernelcad

Add Workspace Target

add_workspace_target

Use this when you need to declare a reachability target for a connector. Durably insert <assembly>.workspace(connectorRef, { reachable, toleranceMm? }) before the final top-level return. Workspace targets are checked by solvedModel validation/review pose-envelope gates. Returns modified source plus diagnostics from re-evaluation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe .kcad.ts source code.
reachableYesWorld-frame Vec3 targets the connector must be able to reach.
toleranceMmNoOptional non-negative tolerance in mm.
connector_refYesConnector ref "<partName>.<connectorName>".
assembly_bindingYesJS identifier bound to assembly(...).

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?

The description discloses that the tool 'Durably insert[s]' code, indicating a permanent modification, and returns 'modified source plus diagnostics.' This adds context beyond the annotations (which only indicate not read-only and not destructive). The description does not contradict 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the usage directive, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and well-structured 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 tool has an output schema and is moderately complex (5 params), the description fully covers the purpose, usage, return value (modified source plus diagnostics), and behavioral context (checked by validation gates). It is complete for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The tool description does not add any additional explanation beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'declare a reachability target for a connector.' It specifies the action (insert a workspace target) and the resource (connector). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_constraint' or 'add_connector'.

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?

The description starts with 'Use this when you need to...', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It explains that workspace targets are checked by validation gates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, slightly reducing the guidance.

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