Skip to main content
Glama

edit_shape

Modify a previously committed shape: move vertices, reassign to another finish tag, switch between area/linear/deduct, or relabel the room. Quantities recalculate from the revision.

Instructions

REVISE a shape you already committed, instead of deleting it and starting over: pass new verts to move the geometry, condition to reassign it to a different finish tag, role to switch between floor_area / deduct / linear, label to name the room it belongs to, or any combination. Quantities are recomputed from the result — a role flip alone re-measures (closed area vs open length). The loop this is for: one_click or measure_polygon to commit, view_sheet with overlay:true to LOOK at what landed, then edit_shape to fix the two vertices that overshot into the corridor. label is the per-room reporting seam: detect_rooms already stamps the room number it traced from, so this is how a shape traced by hand — or one whose room number the sweep read wrong — joins the same per-room breakdown the Report and the workbook's floor × room tab group by. Shapes a human affirmed (origin.reviewed) are ink and are refused — an agent revises its own pencil and nothing else. Agent self-revision is tallied on origin.agent_edits, kept deliberately separate from the human-correction fields. Coordinates are image px at render scale 2.0: PDF pt × 2, origin top-left, y down (the browser canvas's native space). Sheet payloads carry dims in both px and pt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNoSwitch what the shape measures — flipping INTO surface_area needs a height on the shape or its condition
labelNoThe room (or phase/area) this shape belongs to, e.g. "134" or "OFFICE 101" — what per-room reporting groups by. Pass "" to clear it
vertsNoReplacement geometry (image px): ≥3 vertices for an area shape, ≥2 points for a linear/surface run, ≥1 for a count marker
shape_idYesId returned when the shape was committed
conditionNoReassign to this finish tag (minted on first use)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNocount shapes only — the marker's EA (preserved across the edit)
labelNoThe shape's room/phase label after this call — absent when it carries none (a cleared label reports as absent, not as an empty string)
nvertsYes
area_sfNo0 for linear shapes; LF × height for surface_area; absent for count
changedYesWhich fields this call actually changed
shape_idYes
agent_editsYesHow many times the agent has revised this shape — separate from the human-correction tally
measure_roleYes
perimeter_lfNoLength for linear/surface runs, perimeter for closed ones; absent for count
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that quantities are recomputed from the result, that a role flip alone re-measures, that human-affirmed shapes are refused, and that agent self-revision is tallied separately. It also specifies the coordinate system (image px at render scale 2.0, origin top-left, y down), which is critical for correct usage.

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 and front-loaded: purpose, parameter summary, workflow, constraints, and coordinate system are arranged logically. The label reporting seam paragraph is lengthy and somewhat complex, but every sentence adds meaningful context, so the length is justified.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description explains the tool's role in a broader lifecycle, the refusal rule, recalculation behavior, and coordinate semantics. It could mention the no-op case for sending only shape_id, but the description is otherwise comprehensive and complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by mapping parameters to actions, e.g., 'verts to move the geometry', 'condition to reassign it to a different finish tag', 'role to switch...', 'label to name the room'. However, it only lists floor_area/deduct/linear in the prose and omits the surface_area and count role options (which are only in the schema enum), and the coordinate detail is helpful but not essential beyond the schema.

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?

The description opens with 'REVISE a shape you already committed' — a specific verb and resource — and enumerates the exact modifications supported: verts, condition, role, label. It explicitly contrasts with the alternative of deleting and starting over, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like measure_polygon and delete_shape.

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?

It provides an explicit workflow loop: 'one_click or measure_polygon to commit, view_sheet with overlay:true to LOOK at what landed, then edit_shape to fix...'. It also states a strict exclusion rule: 'Shapes a human affirmed (origin.reviewed) are ink and are refused — an agent revises its own pencil and nothing else.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Kentucky-ai/opentakeoff'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server