Creates a sphere in CST Studio from a component, name, and radius, with optional center coordinates, material, and segments for 3D geometry setup.
Create a sphere in CST Studio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Solid name | |
| radius | Yes | Sphere radius | |
| center_x | No | Center X coordinate | |
| center_y | No | Center Y coordinate | |
| center_z | No | Center Z coordinate | |
| material | No | Material name | PEC |
| segments | No | Number of segments (0=auto) | |
| component | Yes | Component name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose important behavioral details such as default material, coordinate system, or interaction with existing geometry.
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 description is very concise—one sentence—and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding length.
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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks details about shape behavior, constraints (e.g., radius must be positive), and integration with other CST operations.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema parameters (e.g., radius, center coordinates, material).
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 'Create a sphere in CST Studio' clearly states the action (create) and resource (sphere). Among sibling tools, it uniquely identifies the shape, distinguishing it from other creation tools like cst_create_brick or cst_create_cylinder.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other shape creation tools like cst_create_cylinder for cylindrical objects). There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.