Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sketchflow-mcp

sketchflow-mcp

by 4Ship-ca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

model_export

Export 3D models and assemblies to disk in STEP, STL, OBJ, JSON, BOM, SVG, or DXF formats, with optional validation reports, thread handling, and exploded drawings.

Instructions

Save the 3D model to disk: step (AP214 for CAD — every part an exact solid B-rep with planar faces, one product per part in an assembly, repeated parts placed rather than copied; vetted by reading it back before it is written: closed oriented shells, planarity, genus, and volume / area / bounding box against the model — the vetting report is returned; threads:"plain" leaves modelled threads cosmetic for a much smaller file), stl (watertight mesh for printing/slicers), obj (mesh, one object per body), json (.sf3d.json, the editable parametric model), bom (parts list CSV with quantities, materials and masses), svg / dxf (an engineering drawing sheet: third-angle TOP / FRONT / RIGHT + isometric, hidden lines dashed, the model's dimensions, parts list and title block with material and mass; an assembly of two or more parts gets an exploded isometric with balloons numbered as the parts list, unless exploded:false). Coordinates are mm from the model origin. Returns the file paths.

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": "model_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dirNofolder (default ~/Pictures/SketchFlow)
sheetNo
formatsNo
threadsNostep: modelled threads (default) or plain (cosmetic, much smaller)
explodedNoassemblies: exploded isometric with balloons (default true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0-beta.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the read-back vetting (closed shells, planarity, genus, volume/area/bbox), that the vetting report is returned, that threads:"plain" makes threads cosmetic for a smaller file, and that assemblies get exploded isometrics with balloons. It omits overwrite semantics, whether `dir` is created if absent, and any permission requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, but the body is one enormous run-on sentence built from nested parentheses, making it laborious to parse per-format. The format catalogue earns its place; the packaging works against it.

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 5-parameter, annotation-free, no-output-schema tool this is substantially complete: units (mm from model origin), return value (file paths), format semantics, and the vetting report are all stated. Only the `sheet` parameter and file-overwrite behavior are left uncovered.

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 60%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning for the `formats` enum (each value's output characteristics) and reinforces `threads` and `exploded`, but the `sheet` parameter (A4/A3/A2) is never mentioned, leaving a documented gap the agent must infer from the enum alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Save the 3D model to disk") and then enumerates every supported format with a parenthetical defining what each one produces. An agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling `export` tool, which is the only remaining ambiguity.

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?

Gives strong selection guidance at the format level: step for CAD, stl for printing/slicers, json for the editable parametric model, svg/dxf for drawing sheets. What is missing is tool-level routing — no statement of when to choose model_export over the sibling `export`, or whether model_check should run first.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools