Extrude or indent a selected face by a set distance in metres; positive moves outward, negative moves inward.
Push/pull a face by a specified distance. Positive distance extrudes outward, negative pulls inward. All lengths and coordinates are in metres.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| distance | Yes | Distance in metres to push (positive) or pull (negative) | |
| entity_id | Yes | ID of the face to push/pull |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0+make2017Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the sign convention and that all units are metres, but for a mutation tool it says nothing about side effects on adjacent/connected geometry, whether new faces are created, or failure conditions.
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?
Three short sentences, none wasted, with the core operation front-loaded ahead of the directional and unit conventions.
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 simple two-parameter modelling operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, direction, and units, but omits side effects on neighbouring geometry and any indication of error or constraint behaviour that an agent would need before mutating a model.
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 100% and both parameter descriptions already state the units and the positive/negative meaning, so the description largely repeats what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Push/pull a face') plus the effect's scope, which cleanly separates it from siblings like move_entity or scale_entity. The sign convention further pins down exactly what the operation does.
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?
It explains how to use the distance value (positive extrudes, negative pulls) but never says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as move_entity or create_face. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.