Create a simplified chamfered copy of a 3D solid by specifying edges, faces, distance, angle, or radius for CAD modeling.
Create a simplified chamfered copy of a solid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| angle | No | ||
| guides | No | ||
| radius | No | ||
| path_id | No | ||
| distance | No | ||
| edge_ids | No | ||
| face_ids | No | ||
| profiles | No | ||
| solid_id | No | ||
| direction | No | ||
| thickness | No | ||
| open_faces | No | ||
| profile_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Copy" usefully implies the operation is non-destructive to the original solid, but nothing is said about which geometry (edges, faces, profiles) is affected, what happens with conflicting parameters, or what the call returns for a 13-parameter mutation tool.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but at eight words it is under-specified rather than concise for a tool with 13 parameters. Brevity here comes at the cost of missing information.
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?
A 13-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema is left almost entirely undocumented. The description provides no parameter mapping, no return expectations, and no safety or failure behavior, so it is inadequate for correct invocation.
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% across 13 parameters, and the description names none of them. An agent has no way to know whether angle, radius, distance, thickness, guides, path_id, profiles, or open_faces are required, mutually exclusive, or dimension-dependent.
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 verb and resource ("Create a simplified chamfered copy of a solid") and even hints that the result is a new copy rather than an in-place edit. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as fillet_3d, chamfer_2d, or draft_angle, so the agent must infer 3D-vs-2D and chamfer-vs-fillet distinctions from the name alone.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With sibling tools like fillet_3d and chamfer_2d in the same namespace, the absence of any routing instruction is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.