Create a cone or truncated cone solid from bottom radius, top radius, and height to generate precise CAD geometry for drawings and 3D models.
Create a frustum or cone solid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cx | No | ||
| cy | No | ||
| cz | No | ||
| unit | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| topRadius | Yes | ||
| bottomRadius | Yes |
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 behavioral burden. It only says the tool creates a solid and omits mutating side effects, undo/transaction behavior, coordinate system, units, layer defaults, and error conditions.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is structurally clean and immediately tells the agent the tool's core action.
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?
With eight parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, a one-sentence description is far too thin. It states the shape created but omits required inputs, coordinate handling, units, and creation behavior.
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 eight parameters. The description hints at frustum/cone geometry but never names or explains cx, cy, cz, height, topRadius, bottomRadius, unit, or layer, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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?
States a specific creation verb and concrete geometric resource ('frustum or cone solid'), which clearly identifies the tool's action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling primitives such as create_cylinder, create_revolution, or loft beyond the resource name.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_cylinder, create_revolution, loft, or sweep. Prerequisites, exclusions, and typical use contexts are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.