OpenSCAD MCP Server

get_project_files

Retrieves OpenSCAD project files with metadata and dependency references, or traces constant dependency graphs for upstream/downstream analysis.

Instructions

mode="files": every .scad under project_dir with size/mtime and the include/use/import/surface references of each. mode="trace": the constant dependency graph for symbol= (lexical, file-scope constants only): its definition, what depends on it (direction="downstream") or what it depends on ("upstream"), by depth, and the part files that use them. project_dir must be inside allowed_paths when configured.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mode`	No	files
`symbol`	No
`direction`	No	downstream
`project_dir`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.1Sep 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / direction

Added value: +{
+  "default": "downstream",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / mode

Added value: +{
+  "default": "files",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / symbol

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

Addedv0.3.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses retrieval details (size, mtime, references, dependency graph) and constraints (allowed_paths). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe any side effects or rate limits. It is transparent about information returned but not fully explicit about behavior beyond queries.

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?

The description is a single paragraph but packed with essential details in two sentences. It front-loads mode-specific behavior and constraints. While long, it is efficient and avoids redundancy, though a more structured layout (e.g., bullets) could improve scanability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, multiple parameters), the description covers key aspects: what is returned, depth, direction, and path constraints. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return format. However, it lacks information on edge cases (e.g., empty projects, invalid symbol) and performance implications, leaving minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains 'mode' with its two values, defines 'symbol' as the constant to trace, clarifies 'direction' as downstream/upstream, and explains 'project_dir' with the allowed_paths constraint. This adds substantial value beyond the raw schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: listing .scad files and tracing constant dependency graphs. It specifies the two modes (files, trace) and distinguishes the resource and actions. However, it is dense and might be better split, but it is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_libraries or check.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and the modes, implying when to use it (for file listing or dependency tracing). It mentions the allowed_paths constraint but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. It lacks a clear 'use this when' vs. sibling differentiation.

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

Deploy Server