Moltline Optimize

Cutting Stock 2D

cutting_stock_2d

Read-onlyIdempotent

Guillotine cut layouts for rectangular parts from sheets, with kerf and grain. PREMIUM (license).

Typical input {"sheets": [{"id": "ply", "l": 2440, "w": 1220, "qty": 5}], "parts": [{"id": "side", "l": 800, "w": 400, "qty": 6}], "kerf": 3} returns {"sheets_used": 1, "layouts": [{"sheet": "ply", "placements": [{"id": "side", "x": 0, "y": 0, "l": 800, "w": 400, "rotated": false}], "fill_pct": 64.5, "offcuts": [...]}], "unplaced": []}. Every cut is a guillotine cut (edge to edge): the sheet is ripped into strips and each strip cross-cut, which is what a panel saw does; grain true forbids rotating parts unless a part sets rotate true. Use for cabinet, sign and sheet-metal cut lists. Not proven optimal: a best-fit shelf heuristic, reported as such. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error; it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "sheets and parts must be non-empty lists ( and )"}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kerf`	No	saw blade width lost per cut.
`grain`	No	true when parts must keep their orientation (l along the sheet's l).
`parts`	Yes	{id, l, w, qty, rotate}; rotate overrides the grain rule per part.
`sheets`	Yes	{id, l, w, qty}; used in the order given.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the guillotine edge-to-edge cut constraint, that grain true forbids rotation unless overridden per part, the heuristic (non-optimal) nature, and detailed non-throwing error behavior with a safe-retry guarantee.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then a compact input/output example, then constraints and error behavior. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the error-handling paragraph is somewhat verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, and the description additionally shows a sample return shape with fill_pct, offcuts, unplaced. The guillotine/grain/kerf behaviors and error semantics are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the worked example input/output and the note that 'rotate overrides the grain rule per part' add semantics beyond the schema field descriptions. Marginal over baseline.

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 and resource: 'Guillotine cut layouts for rectangular parts from sheets,' and clarifies kerf/grain handling. The '2D guillotine' framing distinguishes it from cutting_stock_1d and from general packing siblings like pack_bins.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ('cabinet, sign and sheet-metal cut lists') and discloses the algorithm is a best-fit shelf heuristic, not optimal. Does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cutting_stock_1d, so it stops short of the explicit-alternatives bar.

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

All Moltline Optimize tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.