Skip to main content
Glama

extend_stl_base

DestructiveIdempotent

Extends an STL model’s base by a specified height in millimeters to add material beneath existing geometry without rebuilding the file.

Instructions

Extend the base of an STL file by a specified amount

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "stl_path": "<stl_path>",
      "extension_height": "<extension_height>"
    },
    "name": "extend_stl_base"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stl_pathYesPath to the STL file to modify
extension_heightYesHeight in mm to extend the base by

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that – it doesn't say whether the original STL is overwritten in place, whether a backup/new file is produced, or what geometry assumptions must hold for the extrusion to succeed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this is minimally adequate. However, for a destructive file-modifying operation with no output schema, the description should at least indicate whether the file is modified in place and what the tool returns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both stl_path and extension_height documented including units (mm), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'specified amount' merely restates the schema and adds no constraint such as valid ranges, negative values, or unit conventions beyond what the schema already says.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Extend the base of an STL file'. An agent can distinguish this from slicing, scaling, or rotating siblings, though the description never names those alternatives to sharpen the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'extend the base by a specified amount' – an agent can infer this is for adding material under a model, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like scale_stl or lay_flat.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.