Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fatia MCP

Fatia MCP

by anthonydaros
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_fit_test

Generate labelled pin/socket STL coupon pairs and a manifest for physical clearance testing. Test radial gaps by sizing each socket through-hole as peg diameter plus 2 × gap.

Instructions

Generate labelled pin/socket STL coupon pairs and a manifest for physical clearance testing. Gaps are RADIAL mm: socket hole diameter = peg diameter + 2 × gap. Socket is a through-hole; pin is 4 mm taller for handling. Nominal polygonal geometry does not predict printed fit.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_fit_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gaps_mmNoExplicit radial gaps; mutually exclusive with range fields. Default: [0.1, 0.2, 0.3].
depth_mmNoSocket depth in millimeters; the pin is four millimeters taller.
gap_end_mmNoLast radial gap in millimeters, inclusive.
gap_step_mmNoPositive radial gap increment in millimeters for range generation.
gap_start_mmNoFirst radial gap in millimeters, inclusive.
peg_diameter_mmNoNominal pin diameter in millimeters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.47

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses geometry behavior (socket is a through-hole, pin is 4 mm taller than depth, gap is radial) but never states where the STL pairs and manifest are written, how files are named, or what happens on conflicting parameter combinations — significant gaps for a file-generating tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable, then the critical unit/formula clarification, then the physical caveat. No restatement of the tool name, no filler, and every sentence changes how an agent would call or interpret the tool.

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?

For a 6-parameter generator with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, units, and geometry semantics well. It leaves the artifact side thin — no indication of output paths, manifest contents, or naming convention — which matters when no output schema exists to explain the return.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the floor, and the description genuinely adds meaning on top: it defines gaps as RADIAL millimetres and gives the exact relation socket diameter = peg diameter + 2 × gap, which an agent could easily misread as diametral from the schema alone. It also ties depth_mm to the 4 mm pin overhang.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

A precise verb (Generate) plus concrete resources: labelled pin/socket STL coupon pairs plus a manifest, scoped to physical clearance testing. Nothing in the sibling list (scale_stl, rotate_stl, analyze_mesh_health, etc.) could be confused with it, so differentiation is implicit but unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended context is stated explicitly: physical clearance testing, and the closing note that nominal polygonal geometry does not predict printed fit tells the agent why this tool exists rather than pure geometry inspection. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use framing or a named alternative (e.g. create_calibration_project), which keeps it off a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools