Skip to main content
Glama
KD5RYN

b123d-print-mcp

by KD5RYN

measure

Calculate millimeter gaps, wall thickness, face distances/angles, and hole diameters on built parts, with exact points and optional images, to verify fits numerically instead of guessing from pictures.

Instructions

Precise measurements on the built part, in mm, with the points where they were taken: check fits with numbers instead of guessing from pictures. kind: 'distance' (a, b: piece names from build() or assembly labels, stand-ins included): the smallest gap and its two points, or when they overlap the interference volume, its box and depth. Two assembly labels are measured where assembly(d) puts them (the fit). 'wall' (at: x,y,z on or in the material; direction: optional x,y,z): the thickness along a line through the point (default: into the part along the nearest face's normal), with the gaps and walls beyond it. 'faces' (face, face2: ids or sides from list_faces): the distance between two parallel flat faces (a wall, a slot), or the angle between them, and their closest points. 'hole' (face: a flat face id or side, and/or at: a point at the hole): each round hole's modeled diameter, what it prints at after hole_comp, center, axis, through or blind depth. a: the piece for wall, faces and hole (default: the only one). frame: 'auto' (default), 'print' (as build() returns it) or 'assembly' (as assembly(d) places it); points are in that frame. image: also a picture of the part with what was measured in red. Uses the build cache.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aNo
bNo
atNo
faceNo
kindYes
nameYes
sizeNonormal
face2No
frameNoauto
imageNo
inlineNo
variantNo
directionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.12

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful details such as default frame behavior, optional image output, use of the build cache, and what each measurement kind returns, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it can fail, or what happens with stale cached geometry.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded and organized by measurement kind. Each section provides actionable detail, though some sentences are run-on and relatively hard to parse quickly.

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?

For a complex 13-parameter measurement tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core measurement modes and many inputs well. It remains incomplete regarding several parameters and does not describe failure behavior or output shape beyond what each kind measures.

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 0%, so the description must compensate across 13 parameters. It explains the most important ones well: kind values, a, b, at, direction, face, face2, frame, image, and defaults for a. However, it omits meaningful explanation of name, size, inline, and variant, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Precise measurements on the built part, in mm, with the points where they were taken.' It adds a useful motivation ('check fits with numbers instead of guessing from pictures') and enumerates measurement kinds, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like check_fit or check.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied through the enumerated kinds and their intended inputs, e.g. face ids from list_faces and piece names from build() or assembly labels. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to alternatives such as check_fit, leaving the agent to infer the boundaries.

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