Rotate STL mesh files by specified X, Y, and Z angles in degrees to correct orientation before slicing or editing.
Rotate an STL file by specified angles (degrees)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| angle_x | No | Rotation angle for X axis in degrees (default: 0) | |
| angle_y | No | Rotation angle for Y axis in degrees (default: 0) | |
| angle_z | No | Rotation angle for Z axis in degrees (default: 0) | |
| stl_path | Yes | Path to the STL file to rotate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.44Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks details about side effects (e.g., overwrites the file, creates a new file), required permissions, or output format. Only the unit (degrees) is mentioned.
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 that is concise and to the point, with no unnecessary words.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple tool with 4 well-documented parameters, but fails to explain whether the rotation modifies the file in-place or outputs a new file, which is relevant context.
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?
All parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 (rotate) and the resource (STL file) with specific angles, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scale_stl or extend_stl_base.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like blender_mcp_edit_model or when not to use it. No context about prerequisites or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.