SketchUp MCP Server

chamfer_edge

Bevels edges of a group or component by a given distance in mm, returning cut stats to verify success.

Instructions

Chamfer (bevel) edges of a group/component by distance mm.

By default ALL edges are chamfered. Unreliable on non-manifold geometry.

Returns: JSON {id, name, type, bbox_mm|null, edges_chamfered, stats{attempted, skipped_no_match, subtract_failed, succeeded}} â€” check stats.subtract_failed == 0 (failed cuts) and stats.skipped_no_match == 0 (edges consumed by earlier cuts).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Entity ID from a previous response (integer or its string form)
`distance`	No	Chamfer distance in mm

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the default scope (all edges), a reliability limitation (non-manifold geometry), and explains the failure-signalling stats so the agent knows how to verify success. It omits permissions/auth and reversibility (e.g., undo availability), keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation, then scope, caveat, and return handling in order. The return-value block is somewhat verbose for a schema that already defines the output, but every clause (the two stats checks) carries actionable meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive edge operation with an output schema present, the description covers scope, a reliability caveat, and how to interpret failure stats. Missing only auth/permission and reversibility notes, which is a modest gap rather than a crippling one.

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 coverage is 100%, so id and distance are already documented in the schema (including the mm unit and positivity). The description only restates the distance unit and default-all-edges behavior, adding little beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (chamfer/bevel) applied to a specific resource (edges of a group/component) and quantifies the operation via distance in mm. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names fillet_edge, its obvious sibling, to distinguish bevel from round.

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?

Implies usage through 'By default ALL edges are chamfered' and a non-manifold reliability caveat, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus fillet_edge or other modeling tools, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., an entity must be selected or referenced by id).

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