Resize a 3D model uniformly into a new output file using a percentage, scale factor, or target Z height, while preserving the original file.
Scale a 3D model uniformly into a new file. Pass exactly one of: percent (80 = 80%), factor (0.8 = 80%) or target_height_mm (desired Z height).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| factor | No | ||
| percent | No | ||
| file_path | Yes | ||
| output_path | Yes | ||
| target_height_mm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: scaling is uniform (not per-axis) and the result goes to a separate output file, implying the source is preserved. It stops short of noting precision, units handling for target_height_mm, or error behavior when zero or multiple modes are supplied.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the constraint clause immediately after. The examples are dense and each earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose and the mutual-exclusivity rule that an agent would otherwise get wrong from a flat schema with three nullable fields. Minor missing pieces: units/axis clarification for target_height_mm and what happens on zero or multiple modes.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for the hard part: the three mutually exclusive scaling modes are explained with concrete examples (80 = 80%, 0.8 = 80%, target_height_mm = desired Z height) plus the exactly-one constraint. The two required path parameters (file_path, output_path) get no explanation, which is the only meaningful gap given self-evident names.
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 and resource ('Scale a 3D model') plus two distinguishing qualifiers: uniform scaling and output to a new file. This cleanly separates it from the closest sibling, rotate_model, and from the inspection tool get_model_dimensions without requiring either schema.
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?
The 'pass exactly one of' clause gives selection rules among the three scaling parameters, which is useful, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g. rotate_model, get_model_dimensions) or any preconditions. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.