kernelcad

Review CAD Model

review_cad

Read-only

Use this when you need to review a mechanism for fitness and repair mode. Run the deterministic CAD review loop: evaluate the script, validate the assembly/mate graph, check mate connectors touch modeled material, sample declared mate limits, optionally check interferences at sampled poses, report connector workspace bounds, and return a mechanism fitness verdict for agent self-review. Fitness includes repairMode: none, local-fix, parameter-tune, or topology-redesign.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Inline kernelCAD script source.
`file`	No	Path to a .kcad.ts script file.
`assembly`	No	Assembly name; defaults to the first captured assembly.
`designGoal`	No	Original user design prompt or goal. Included in suggestedRepairPrompt so topology-redesign repairs restart from the intended physical design instead of local coordinate nudges.
`epsilonMm3`	No	Interference volume threshold in mm^3. Default 0.01.
`combinatorial`	No	Sample all 2^N limit-corner combinations across mates with declared limits. Capped at 8 mates with limits; combine with samplesPerMate for both interior coverage and worst-pose detection. Default false.
`samplesPerMate`	No	Pose-envelope samples per declared-limit mate. 1 (default) = corners only; >=3 adds uniform interior points between min and max. Total samples per non-locked mate = samplesPerMate.
`gripperAperture`	No	Optional fingertip connector refs for gripper aperture travel reporting.
`trackConnectors`	No	Optional connector refs such as ["gripper-plate.tool-tip"] to limit connector workspace reporting.
`preserveInterfaces`	No	External mates, connector refs, part names, or behavioral interfaces the repair agent must preserve during redesign.
`includeInterference`	No	Whether sampled poses run BREP interference checks. Default true.
`includePoseEnvelope`	No	Whether to sample declared mate limits. Default true.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes
`fitness`	No	Mechanism fitness verdict incl. repairMode.
`assembly`	No
`mechanism`	No
`validator`	No	Assembly/mate-graph validator result.
`diagnostics`	Yes
`featureCount`	Yes
`poseEnvelope`	No	Sampled mate-limit pose envelope.
`repairContext`	No
`gripperAperture`	No
`mechanismFailures`	No
`connectorWorkspace`	No	Connector workspace bounds.
`rawInterferencePairs`	No
`suggestedRepairPrompt`	No	Structured repair prompt (failure / repair path).

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds context about the deterministic review loop, including script evaluation, assembly validation, mate checking, interference checks, and repair verdict. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with usage context and is well-structured with a clear list of steps. It is reasonably concise given the complexity, though some redundancy could be trimmed.

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?

Given the 12 parameters (none required), full schema descriptions, output schema, and annotations, the description provides a comprehensive overview of the tool's behavior and return value (repair verdict). It covers the main steps and is complete 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, which is acceptable since the schema already provides full descriptions for all 12 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: reviewing a mechanism for fitness and repair mode. It specifies the verb 'review', the resource 'CAD model', and provides a detailed list of steps in the deterministic CAD review loop. This makes it distinct from sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need to review a mechanism for fitness and repair mode,' providing clear context for use. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All kernelcad tools Inspect

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.

Review CAD Model

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources