SketchUp MCP Server

create_curve

Build a 3D curve in SketchUp from millimeter coordinate points, optionally closing it and wrapping it in a group that returns its bounds and details.

Instructions

Create a SketchUp curve from 3D points.

All coordinates are millimeters (mm).

Points are interpreted as model coordinates [x, y, z]. The resulting curve is wrapped in a SketchUp Group.

Set closed=true to connect the final point back to the first point.

Returns JSON containing: {id, name, type, closed, point_count, bbox_mm{min,max}}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Optional name for the curve group
`closed`	No	Whether to close the curve by connecting the last point to the first point
`points`	Yes	3D curve points [[x,y,z], ...] in mm. At least 2 points.

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: coordinates are in mm, points are model coordinates, the result is wrapped in a SketchUp Group, and closed=true connects endpoints. However it omits error handling, whether the model must be open/active, and undo implications of a geometry-mutating call.

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 action, then short scoped notes. Efficient and readable, though the return-value block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

Covers coordinates, grouping, closed semantics, and return shape, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it. For a mutation tool with no annotations, it could say more about side effects or preconditions, keeping it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the mm/coordinate interpretation of points and elaborates on closed, but adds little meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 and resource: 'Create a SketchUp curve from 3D points,' which is unambiguous. It does not name any sibling (e.g. create_circle) to differentiate, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus siblings like create_circle or create_component, and no prerequisites (e.g. an open model). Usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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