Round selected edges or faces of a 3D solid using radius, angle, or distance to create a simplified filleted copy for CAD modeling and design.
Create a simplified filleted 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral burden. It hints at creating a copy (non-destructive), but doesn't disclose what 'simplified' means, whether the original solid is modified, required input combinations, or output format. This is a significant gap 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is overly terse and misses opportunities to clarify key usage details.
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?
Given 13 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly or understand its 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 coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 13 parameters are documented. The description provides no information about what parameters are needed or how they interact (e.g., which of solid_id, edge_ids, face_ids are required, or how radius/angle/distance apply).
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 ('Create') and resource ('simplified filleted copy of a solid'), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_box or create_sphere. 'Simplified' likely refers to fillet approximation, but the description doesn't explain this nuance or differentiate from chamfer_3d or shell.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chamfer_3d or shell, nor any preconditions such as needing an existing solid or selecting appropriate edges/faces.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.