Merges duplicate vertices, removes loose geometry and degenerate faces, and recalculates normals to repair and prepare 3D meshes for modeling or export.
Merge duplicate verts, remove loose geometry and degenerate faces, make normals consistent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objects | No | Object name or list of names. | |
| shading | No | ||
| remove_loose | No | ||
| merge_distance | No | ||
| recalc_normals | No | ||
| dissolve_degenerate | No |
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 the full burden, and it does disclose the concrete mutations performed (merging, deleting loose/degenerate geometry, recalculating normals), which tells the agent this is a destructive write. However, it never states irreversibility, whether it acts on the whole scene or a selection when 'objects' is null, or that merges can collapse unintended 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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the primary operation (merging verts) and lists the rest without filler. Efficient and scannable, though a comma-separated list rather than structured prose.
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 a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core intent but omits scope/default behavior (what happens when objects is null), the shading option, and any note on reversibility. Adequate but leaving the agent to guess on several call-affecting details.
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 coverage is only 17% (only 'objects' is documented), so the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'merge verts' maps to merge_distance, 'remove loose geometry' to remove_loose, 'degenerate faces' to dissolve_degenerate, and 'normals' to recalc_normals. It says nothing about the 'shading' enum or the meaning/threshold of merge_distance, leaving real gaps.
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 names a specific operation set on a specific resource: merging duplicate verts, removing loose geometry/degenerate faces, and unifying normals. An agent immediately understands this is a mesh-repair tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling edit_mesh, which likely also mutates mesh topology.
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?
There is no guidance on when to run this versus edit_mesh, review_model, or analyze_quality, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g. selection state or that objects must be pre-selected). Usage must be inferred purely from the operation names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.