Repositions an STL model so its geometric center sits at the origin (0,0,0), aligning meshes for consistent slicing and preparation.
Translate the model so its geometric center is at the origin (0,0,0)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stl_path | Yes | Path to the STL file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.44Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions translation but does not disclose whether the operation modifies the file in-place, returns a new file, or has other side effects.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Could be slightly more structured, but effective for a simple operation.
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?
Lacks details about return values or file handling. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left guessing what happens post-operation.
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% for the single parameter (stl_path), but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Path to the STL file'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('translate') and resource ('model'), specifying the exact goal: geometric center at origin. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rotate_stl or scale_stl.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools like lay_flat or merge_vertices are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.