Skip to main content
Glama

Fredenslund workshop tools

MFT/3 hole pattern

mft3_hole_pattern
Read-onlyIdempotent

Festool MFT/3 dog-hole pattern for a table top of any size. The requested width and depth snap to the nearest valid MFT/3 size (46 + 96 × n mm, n = 1–20, i.e. 142–1966 mm): Ø20 mm holes on a 96 mm grid with the first hole centred 71 mm from every edge, plus the four corner screw holes (Ø11 through, Ø15 counterbore). Returns the snapped size, hole count, every hole and screw-hole position, the Shaper export depths, the file name, a link to the true-to-scale SVG for Shaper Origin/Studio and a link that opens the size in the tool. The original MFT/3 top is 1102 × 718 mm (11 × 7 holes). Unofficial hobby tool, not affiliated with Festool or Shaper.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depth_mmYesDesired top depth in mm; snaps to the nearest valid size (142–1966)
width_mmYesDesired top width in mm; snaps to the nearest valid size (142–1966)
include_svgNoAlso return the SVG markup itself (2–15 KB). By default only the link to the SVG is returned
thickness_mmNoBoard thickness in mm (default 19). Through cuts are encoded at thickness + 1 mm overcut
counterbore_mmNoCounterbore depth in mm for the Ø15 screw-hole rings (default 6; 0 omits them; never deeper than the thickness)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by detailing the exact output (snapped size, hole positions, link to SVG, optional markup) and noting that through cuts are encoded with a 1 mm overcut, which is a precise behavioral trait. This transparency is excellent.

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 dense but well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then detailing grid geometry, output items, and a disclaimer. It is not excessively verbose for the amount of technical detail included, though a slight reduction in redundancy with the schema would improve it.

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 lack of an output schema, the description comprehensively enumerates all returned elements (snapped size, hole count, positions, export depths, filename, links, optional SVG) and clarifies the counterbore behavior and overcut. It also includes a trademark disclaimer, making the context complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 already describes each parameter with full coverage, including snapping ranges and defaults. The description repeats some of this information (e.g., the snapping formula) without adding significant new meaning to the parameters themselves. It provides context for the overall pattern but does not enhance the per-parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 that the tool generates a Festool MFT/3 dog-hole pattern with specific dimensions and snapping behavior. It specifies the resource (table top pattern) and the action (generate/return), making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains when the tool is applicable (any table top size, snapping to valid MFT/3 sizes) but does not explicitly differentiate it from alternatives like the sibling french_cleat_plan. It provides enough context that a user would know this is for MFT/3 patterns, but no direct comparison.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources