moddl

Clip elements

clip_elements

Destructive

Cuts bodies at a plane and keeps one side, or subtracts the body of a cutter element (a beam ending at a round column); exactly one of plane and cutter. New revision, effect report (n_changed, rejected, cloned, carried). A call that succeeds is not a job that's done. Target: guid, guids or a set from find_elements/get_selection, never a filter. Beyond the named: PLAN_REQUIRED, run its plan_id with expect_beyond. It only removes: a target the plane does not cut, or would take whole, is refused, never counted, and grows to no plane. A mesh body is cut where it is closed; terrain: edit_terrain. The colour stays; read_as names the hull before and after and how many separate bodies are left.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "clip_elements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`set`	No	A set id from find_elements or get_selection: writes exactly the elements seen there, nothing that matches later. An element changed since reading is rejected alone; the others are written
`guid`	No	One element (GlobalId)
`keep`	No	With plane: side kept relative to the normal, default below
`note`	No	Your note, stored with the new revision
`guids`	No	These elements (GlobalIds)
`plane`	No	The cutting plane
`cutter`	No	Instead of plane: subtract this body, checked exactly before writing
`dry_run`	No	Preview: the planned effect and a plan_id, nothing written
`plan_id`	No	Execute exactly the plan a dry_run returned, all or nothing; the plan holds target and fields. Plans that clone the same shared object (type, material) run one after the other: plan the second after the first ran, else PLAN_CHANGED
`request_id`	No	Your id for this call: a repeat answers the first result and writes nothing
`expect_count`	No	With set: how many elements the set holds - guards against a mixed-up set id
`expect_beyond`	No	With plan_id: how many elements the plan reaches beyond those named (n_beyond of PLAN_REQUIRED or the dry_run)
`expect_contacts`	No	Intended contacts: checks.contacts splits into as_expected, missing, surprises; an omitted kind is not judged

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds real value on top: a new revision is created, an effect report with n_changed/rejected/cloned/carried is returned, refused cuts are never counted, and dry_run/plan_id semantics are described. The remaining gap is undefined terminology such as 'read_as', which is not a parameter and is never explained, plus the cryptic success-versus-done warning. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded and the length is defensible for 13 parameters, but the style is telegraphic and fragmented, so relations between clauses are hard to parse. 'A call that succeeds is not a job that's done' and 'grows to no plane' cost attention without conveying a definite rule, and 'read_as' introduces an identifier that appears nowhere else.

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?

For a destructive 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the two modes, target sourcing, the plan/dry_run workflow, refusal behaviour, and what happens to material colour. The main holes are the unexplained 'read_as' reference to a return value and the vague warning about success, which leave the agent without a concrete post-call verification step.

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 schema already carries per-parameter meaning and the baseline is 3. The description earns some credit for stating the plane/cutter mutual exclusion, which the schema does not enforce (required is empty), and for explaining expect_beyond in the dry_run/plan_id flow. Otherwise it largely restates what the schema documents.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource and splits it into two clearly demarcated modes: cut bodies at a plane keeping one side, or subtract a cutter body. It also states the constraint 'exactly one of plane and cutter', which no schema field expresses, and it routes the terrain case to edit_terrain so the agent can distinguish this tool from siblings.

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?

'Target: guid, guids or a set from find_elements/get_selection, never a filter' explicitly routes the agent to the sibling tools that produce valid targets and names the invalid approach. The 'PLAN_REQUIRED, run its plan_id with expect_beyond' line gives the escalation workflow. However, the guidance is compressed to fragments, and the line 'A call that succeeds is not a job that's done' is too opaque to function as usable direction.

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

All moddl tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?