Skip to main content
Glama

repair_mesh

Fix mesh defects reported by analyze_mesh_quality by removing loose geometry, dissolving degenerate faces, and optionally filling holes. Returns before/after counts to show the effect.

Instructions

Repair the defects analyze_mesh_quality reports.

Pairs with analyze_mesh_quality: run that first, then call this with the repairs the report calls for. Removing loose geometry and dissolving degenerate faces cannot change a well-formed mesh, so both are on by default. Filling holes creates new geometry and is opt-in.

Args: object_name: Name of the mesh object to repair. remove_loose: Delete loose vertices and wire edges, the ones reported as loose_vertex_count and wire_edge_count. dissolve_degenerate: Dissolve zero-area faces and zero-length edges, reported as zero_area_face_count. fill_holes: Close boundary loops, which reduces non_manifold_edge_count but invents geometry to do it.

Returns: Dict with the counts before and after, so the effect is visible.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fill_holesNo
object_nameYes
remove_looseNo
dissolve_degenerateNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.7.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that remove_loose/dissolve_degenerate are idempotent-safe on well-formed meshes whereas fill_holes 'invents geometry', and it describes the return payload. It stops short of stating permissions, failure modes on invalid input, or performance characteristics.

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?

Front-loaded purpose and pairing precede a clean Args/Returns block; every sentence earns its place. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to repeated parenthetical count names, but nothing is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 4-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, workflow ordering, per-flag effects, and return shape. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly after a quality report.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: every boolean is explained in order-semantics terms (loose vertices/wire edges, zero-area faces, boundary loops) and mapped back to the diagnostic counters it targets. object_name is defined as the mesh object to repair.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Repair the defects') and anchors the scope to a named sibling's output ('the defects analyze_mesh_quality reports'). An agent can distinguish it from the many other mesh tools (remesh, merge_vertices, dissolve_*) immediately.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: run analyze_mesh_quality first, then call this with the repairs the report calls for. It also explains which flags are safe defaults versus opt-in, giving the agent a decision rule rather than raw options.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools