Import STL files into CAD drawings to add 3D mesh geometry for editing and visualization.
Import STL content.
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": "import_stl"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| encoding | 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 behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not say where imported geometry lands (current document vs new), whether it requires an open project, whether an existing document is modified, or whether the operation can fail on malformed STL data.
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?
It is a single short sentence, so there is no padding, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The one clause present does not earn its place because it conveys no information beyond the tool name.
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 three-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema import tool, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine input mode, encoding expectations, target document, or error behavior from this text.
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% and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. The critical relationship between 'path', 'content', and 'encoding' (presumably alternative input modes, with base64 for binary STL) is left entirely unexplained, and none of the three parameters is marked required despite being an either/or input.
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 verb and a resource (import + STL), which distinguishes it from format siblings like import_step and import_obj. However, 'content' is vague: it does not clarify whether the tool reads from a file path or ingests raw STL text, which is exactly the ambiguity the three parameters raise.
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 import_step, import_iges, import_obj, or import_dxf, and no prerequisites or context. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.