Shift an STL model along the X, Y, and Z axes with millimeter offsets to align it for slicing or printing.
Move an STL model along specific axes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stl_path | Yes | Path to the STL file | |
| translate_x | No | Translation along X-axis in millimeters | |
| translate_y | No | Translation along Y-axis in millimeters | |
| translate_z | No | Translation along Z-axis in millimeters |
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 behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the STL is modified in place or a new file is written, what the tool returns, whether multiple axes can be combined, or any failure behavior — all important for a file-mutating geometry operation.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain mutation/return behavior and at least gesture at constraints. For a 4-parameter file-transforming tool, the one-line description leaves the agent without enough context to call it confidently.
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%, and the schema already documents each axis parameter with units (millimeters), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the axes already captured in structured fields.
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 ('Move') and resource ('an STL model') with axis scope, which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it does not differentiate itself from near siblings like rotate_stl, scale_stl, or center_model, which also transform the model's geometry.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. valid STL path, loaded model), and no reference to alternatives such as rotate_stl or scale_stl. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.