Generate a simplified solid from a profile and path for CAD modeling.
Create a simplified swept solid from a profile and path.
| 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 full behavioral burden. It states that it creates a solid but discloses nothing about permissions, whether it is additive/subtractive, how it interacts with existing geometry, or what happens on failure. For a 13-parameter geometry mutation, this is a substantial gap.
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 efficient sentence with zero waste and the core action front-loaded. However, given the tool's complexity, its extreme brevity is under-specification 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?
With 13 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should carry a heavy explanatory load. It does not; an agent cannot call this tool correctly based on the definition alone.
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 13 parameters. The description only vaguely alludes to 'profile' and 'path', leaving angle, radius, distance, guides, edge_ids, face_ids, solid_id, direction, thickness, and open_faces completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 verb (Create) and resource (swept solid) and distinguishes the operation from siblings like loft and create_revolution by naming inputs 'profile and path'. The word 'simplified' is vague about how the result differs from a full sweep, but the core purpose is clear.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. An agent has no guidance on choosing sweep over loft, create_revolution, or boolean operations, nor on required inputs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.