shape_mirrorMirror a geometry node across the XY, YZ, or XZ plane at a set offset to create symmetric fire-simulation models in BULC MCP, keeping the original plus mirrored union by default.
Shape Studio: mirror a node across a plane ('xy'|'yz'|'xz', offset = plane position). keep_original default true (result = original + mirrored union).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| input | Yes | ||
| plane | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| keep_original | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: keep_original defaults to true and the result is the original plus mirrored union, which is exactly the kind of output-shape context an agent needs.
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 dense sentences with no wasted words. The operation is front-loaded, and the plane/offset/default details follow immediately with clear parenthetical qualifiers.
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?
For a 5-parameter shape mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the core operation and three parameters well. It still leaves the name parameter and the exact nature of the input node reference unexplained, so an agent may need to inspect the schema further.
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 parameter meaning. It explains plane ('xy'|'yz'|'xz'), offset (plane position), and keep_original (default true, result semantics), and implies input is the node being mirrored, but it says nothing about the name parameter.
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?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('mirror a node across a plane') and clarifies the plane enumeration and offset meaning. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby shape tools such as shape_transform or shape_boolean, so it is clear but lacks sibling routing.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like shape_transform or shape_boolean. The 'Shape Studio' prefix implies a context, but the agent is left to infer when mirroring is the right operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.