Create a simplified solid from one or more profiles, connecting their cross-sections into a 3D CAD shape.
Create a simplified lofted solid from one or more profiles.
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure for a mutation operation. It does not explain what 'simplified' means, whether profiles are required despite zero required parameters, what permissions or state are needed, or what happens to existing geometry. This is a significant gap for a 13-parameter solid creation 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 wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, it is severely under-specified for a 13-parameter operation, so its brevity reflects a lack of necessary detail rather than optimal conciseness.
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 parameters, zero required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse to guide correct invocation. It omits parameter roles, required conditions, usage context, and behavioral expectations, leaving critical ambiguity for an agent.
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% for all 13 parameters. The description only references 'one or more profiles,' adding no semantic meaning for the other 12 parameters such as angle, guides, radius, path_id, distance, edge_ids, face_ids, solid_id, direction, thickness, open_faces, or profile_id. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: creating a lofted solid from profiles. It is distinguishable from related modeling tools like sweep or create_revolution by the term 'lofted solid.' However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those sibling tools, leaving some inference to the agent.
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 such as sweep, create_revolution, or create_prism. Prerequisites, required profile conditions, and any constraints are absent, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.