Caliper

Request a Feature

feature_request

Request a feature or format that Caliper doesn't support yet.

Free, no payment required. Use this when you need a capability that
Caliper doesn't currently offer — especially unsupported file formats
(STEP, IGES) or analysis features not yet available. Requests are
logged and used to prioritize development.
Privacy policy: https://caliper.fit/privacy

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`description`	Yes	A short description of the feature or format you need. Examples: 'STEP file support', 'volume comparison between two files', 'export to USD format'. This helps prioritize development.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations (all false) provide minimal safety profile, so the description carries the burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: 'Free, no payment required,' 'Requests are logged and used to prioritize development,' and a privacy policy link. This discloses the non-destructive, submission-like nature of the tool, though it doesn't describe the response or confirmation mechanism.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential info: usage guidance, examples, cost note, and privacy link. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant fluff.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, cost, privacy, and outcome (logged for prioritization). Sibling tools are clearly distinguished, and the description provides enough context for an agent to know when to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter meaning with examples (STEP file support, volume comparison) but does not add material new semantics beyond the schema, which already contains the same examples. No additional parameter details are provided in the description.

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 begins with 'Request a feature or format that Caliper doesn't support yet,' which clearly states the action (request) and the resource (feature or format). It explicitly differentiates from sibling format tools by focusing on unsupported capabilities, making it distinct from format_* tools that handle existing formats.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you need a capability that Caliper doesn't currently offer — especially unsupported file formats (STEP, IGES) or analysis features not yet available.' It also mentions the request is logged for prioritization, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus alternative format tools.

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

All Caliper 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. The general-purpose format_auto and format_batch tools cover multiple formats, while the format-specific tools (format_gltf, format_las, etc.) target individual formats, and feature_request serves a completely different administrative function. The descriptions clearly differentiate between auto-detection, batch processing, format detection, and format-specific analysis.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent snake_case naming pattern with clear verb_noun structure. The format_ prefix is used consistently for 9 out of 10 tools (format_auto, format_batch, format_detect, format_gltf, etc.), while feature_request follows the same naming convention for the remaining tool. There are no deviations in naming style or convention.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, this is well-scoped for a geometry file analysis server. Each tool earns its place by covering different aspects of the domain: general analysis (format_auto), batch processing (format_batch), format detection (format_detect), format-specific analysis (7 tools for different formats), and feature requests (feature_request). The count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface provides excellent coverage for geometry file metadata extraction across multiple formats, with both general and format-specific tools. The inclusion of batch processing and format detection adds useful workflow support. The only minor gap is the lack of tools for actual mesh manipulation, repair, or conversion operations, but the server's stated purpose appears focused on analysis rather than modification, and feature_request allows users to request missing capabilities.

Resources

Need Help?