Automatically repair common mesh defects by merging duplicate vertices and fixing non-manifold geometry in the target object.
Automatically fix common mesh defects.
Args: object_name: Target object. fix_manifold: Fix non-manifold geometry. merge_distance: Distance for merging duplicate vertices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_name | Yes | ||
| fix_manifold | No | ||
| merge_distance | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutating operation that merges vertices and alters topology, but it never warns that the operation may be irreversible, does not state what happens when no defects are found, and does not clarify the scope of changes beyond the two parameters.
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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a terse parameter list. There is no filler or repetition of the schema titles beyond the argument mapping. It could be slightly richer without becoming verbose, but as written it is efficient.
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 mutating mesh tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It lacks expected return values, failure modes, prerequisite checks, and any caution about modifying the object. An agent has enough to guess basic invocation but not enough to anticipate consequences or validate the result.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide one-line meanings for all three parameters, which adds value over bare titles. However, it omits units or scale for merge_distance and doesn't explain how fix_manifold and merge_distance interact, so compensation is partial.
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 states a specific action—'Automatically fix common mesh defects'—with a clear resource type and gives the two primary defect categories (non-manifold geometry, duplicate vertices) via arguments. It is distinguishable from analysis tools like analyze_mesh_quality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with repair siblings like merge_vertices or limited_dissolve.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related mesh operations. The description does not mention prerequisites, when an automatic repair is appropriate, or why an agent might choose find_duplicates, merge_vertices, or limited_dissolve instead. Usage context is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.