Apply an ordered batch of OCC primitives, booleans, and transforms to a geometry session, enabling CAD shape creation or modification before mesh generation.
Apply an ordered batch of supported OCC primitives, booleans and transforms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operations | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| request_key | Yes | ||
| expected_revision | Yes |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions ordered batching and supported operation types, but says nothing about mutation side effects, session requirements, expected_revision concurrency behavior, request_key idempotency, or failure semantics.
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?
The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness for a complex four-parameter mutation tool.
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?
Given four required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and a mutation operation, the description is far too sparse. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but essential call-time context about session, revision, and request key is missing.
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 compensate for four required parameters. It adds only a vague notion of 'ordered batch' for operations and does not explain session_id, expected_revision, or request_key at all.
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 ('Apply') and resource ('ordered batch of supported OCC primitives, booleans and transforms'). It clearly distinguishes a batch geometry mutation tool from singular geometry or mesh tools, though it does not name sibling alternatives explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as geometry_structured_blocks, geometry_pipe_oh, or geometry_inspect. Usage is only implied by the word 'Apply' and the mention of a batch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.