Rotate STL files around X, Y, or Z axes by degree values to align models for printing, slicing, or repair workflows.
Rotate an STL model around specific axes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rotate_x | No | Rotation around X-axis in degrees | |
| rotate_y | No | Rotation around Y-axis in degrees | |
| rotate_z | No | Rotation around Z-axis in degrees | |
| stl_path | Yes | Path to the STL file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the rotation mutates the file in place or returns a new model, whether the original is preserved, or whether there are constraints on rotation values. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable 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 no wasted words, but it is arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than optimally structured.
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?
Parameters are fully covered by the schema and no output schema exists, so the description needn't explain returns. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations it should disclose the in-place-vs-new-model behavior, which it omits.
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 100%, so each parameter (rotate_x/y/z in degrees, stl_path) is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb (rotate) and resource (STL model), which distinguishes it from siblings like scale_stl and translate_stl. The phrase 'around specific axes' is somewhat redundant since the schema names the axes, 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 guidance on when to use this versus scale_stl, translate_stl, or modify_stl_section, and no prerequisites or context about the STL manipulation workflow. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.