Rotate an STL model so its largest flat face lies on the XY plane at Z=0, ensuring a stable orientation for printing.
Rotate the model so its largest flat face lies on the XY plane (Z=0)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stl_path | Yes | Path to the STL file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the core action but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether the file is modified in place), error handling for models without a flat face, or return value. With no annotations, more disclosure would be beneficial.
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?
Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and outcome with no wasted words.
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?
Adequate for a simple tool but missing expected output description (e.g., returns path or modifies in place). Could mention prerequisites like presence of a flat face.
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?
Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Path to the STL file'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool rotates the model so its largest flat face lies on the XY plane, using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like rotate_stl which require manual angles.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rotate_stl, center_model). The description does not specify prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.