Skip to main content
Glama

scale_stl

DestructiveIdempotent

Resize STL models along X, Y, and Z axes using custom scale factors for accurate 3D print preparation.

Instructions

Scale an STL file by specified factors

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": "scale_stl"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scale_xNoScale factor for X axis (default: 1.0)
scale_yNoScale factor for Y axis (default: 1.0)
scale_zNoScale factor for Z axis (default: 1.0)
stl_pathYesPath to the STL file to scale

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the description must add the operational detail annotations cannot — yet it does not say whether the source STL is overwritten in place or a new file is produced. For a destructiveHint=true tool, that omission is significant, as is the absence of any note about how a zero or negative scale factor is handled.

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 eleven-word sentence with the resource and mechanism front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than optimal density.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a destructive geometry mutation with four parameters and no output schema, so the description is the only place to explain the result location and reversibility. It covers neither, leaving the agent unable to predict the outcome of the call.

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 per-axis factors and defaults documented inline, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The phrase 'specified factors' merely echoes that per-axis model without adding constraints on allowed ranges, uniformity requirements, or the units involved.

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 ('Scale an STL file') and mentions the mechanism ('by specified factors'), so the operation is immediately clear. It does not, however, distinguish this from closely related siblings such as rotate_stl, center_model, lay_flat, or extend_stl_base, which also transform an STL.

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 guidance on when to choose this over rotate_stl or extend_stl_base, nor any mention of prerequisites such as a prior slice_stl or get_stl_info call. The agent must infer the selection context entirely from the tool name.

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