Export selected CAD entities to a 3MF-like text format for 3D printing, sharing, or downstream CAD processing.
Export entities to 3MF-like text.
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": "export_3mf"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| entity_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden but discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the export writes to a file on disk, returns a string, overwrites on conflict, or what happens when entity_ids is omitted (it is not required). 'Text' hints at output format but conflicts with the presence of a 'path' parameter.
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 wastes no words, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. It is concise without being informative.
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 parameterized export tool with no annotations, no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and ambiguous file-vs-text semantics, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot reliably determine how to invoke it or what side effects to expect.
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 for two undocumented parameters, and it does not. 'Entities' loosely hints at entity_ids, but 'path' is never explained, and the fact that neither parameter is required is left entirely silent.
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 gives a clear verb ('Export') and resource ('entities') plus a target format (3MF), which is enough to know roughly what it does. However, '3MF-like text' is hedged and ambiguous about whether a file is written or text is returned, and it does nothing to distinguish this from the many sibling exporters (export_step, export_stl, export_obj, export_iges, export_dwg).
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 mention of prerequisites, and no differentiation from the large family of export_* siblings. The only signal is the implied format, so the agent must infer context entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.