format_detectDetect the geometry file format from a filename or URL.
Returns the detected format name and whether it is currently supported.
Use this to check format support before making a paid analysis call.
No payment required. Privacy policy: https://caliper.fit/privacy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | Filename or URL to check. The format is detected from the file extension. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description complements the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by adding useful behavioral context: it returns the detected format and supported status, and importantly notes 'No payment required.' It does not contradict the annotations and provides transparency beyond the structured data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences, each contributing value: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. No wasted words; the privacy policy link is supplementary and doesn't detract.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple detection tool with one well-documented parameter, annotations, and sibling context, the description covers the essential behavior, return value, and use case. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a complete description for the single filename parameter ('Filename or URL to check. The format is detected from the file extension.'). The description repeats this idea without adding extra syntax or format details, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Detect' and names the resource 'geometry file format from a filename or URL.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling format tools by focusing on pre-analysis format checking rather than conversion or processing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to check format support before making a paid analysis call.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.