Skip to main content
Glama

rotate_stl

DestructiveIdempotent

Rotates an STL file by specified X, Y, and Z angles in degrees to adjust its orientation before slicing or printing.

Instructions

Rotate an STL file by specified angles (degrees)

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>"
    },
    "name": "rotate_stl"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
angle_xNoRotation angle for X axis in degrees (default: 0)
angle_yNoRotation angle for Y axis in degrees (default: 0)
angle_zNoRotation angle for Z axis in degrees (default: 0)
stl_pathYesPath to the STL file to rotate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare that the tool is destructive, non-read-only, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that, such as whether the original STL is overwritten or a new file is written, or what happens to previously rotated geometry. It mainly restates the operation and the degrees unit already present in the schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary wording. It clearly identifies the operation and relevant unit without burying the main action.

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?

The tool is a simple four-parameter file mutation, and the schema plus annotations already carry most of the structured context. However, the description does not clarify return behavior or whether the STL is modified in place, which matters for a destructive file operation with no output schema.

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%, and each angle parameter is already documented as degrees with a default of 0. The description adds only the general phrase 'specified angles (degrees)' and does not provide extra constraints such as valid ranges or rotation order, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: rotate an STL file, with the angle unit clarified as degrees. It is distinguishable from scale_stl by the operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from related orientation tools such as lay_flat or center_model.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as scale_stl, center_model, or lay_flat. The agent must infer applicability entirely from the tool name and one-sentence description.

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