Export blueprint geometry as STL or OBJ text to create 3D-printable models or CAD-ready files.
Export a blueprint's geometry as STL (ASCII) or OBJ text for 3D printing / CAD.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | Yes | stl | |
| blueprint | Yes | Anvil blueprint: a schematic graph for one domain. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the output form ('STL (ASCII) or OBJ text') and implies a non-mutating export operation, but it does not explain error behavior, authentication needs, or whether the result is returned inline or as a file.
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 a single front-loaded sentence containing action, resource, output formats, and purpose. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and output format but omits details such as return shape, handling of scale/units, and error conditions. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.
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?
With 50% schema description coverage, the tool description adds some value by mapping the 'format' enum to STL/OBJ and by indicating that the 'blueprint' parameter is the source of geometry. However, it does not explain how the blueprint's nodes, edges, or scale are converted into geometry beyond what the schema already states.
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 states a specific action ('Export'), a specific resource ('a blueprint's geometry'), and concrete output formats ('STL (ASCII) or OBJ text'). It also names the use case ('3D printing / CAD'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that create, list, or solve things.
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?
The phrase 'for 3D printing / CAD' gives clear context for when this tool should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the intended use case is unambiguous enough for an agent to route to it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.