forge3d-mcp

Inspect Model

inspect_model

Get geometry facts for a 3D model file—triangle count, dimensions, watertightness, and body count—without opening it; safe to run on broken meshes.

Instructions

Geometry facts for a model file: triangles, dimensions, watertightness, bodies.

Cheap and safe on broken meshes. Use this instead of opening the file.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_model"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.7Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — cheap and safe on broken meshes — which imply non-destructive reading. But it never explicitly states that nothing is modified, whether the model must be loaded/imported first, or any cost or size limits, leaving the safety profile partly inferred for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields and followed by the cost/safety note. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple single-parameter read. What remains missing is a clear statement of non-destructiveness and path expectations, which is modest but meaningful given the absence of annotations.

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

Parameters3/5

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

One parameter (`path`) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must supply meaning. "model file" and "opening the file" do imply the path refers to a filesystem path to a model file rather than an ID, but no format, extension, or relative-vs-absolute expectations are given.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a concrete noun phrase naming exactly what is returned — triangles, dimensions, watertightness, bodies — for a model file, which reads unmistakably as a read-only geometry inspection tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like validate_model, repair_model, and plan_model, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"Cheap and safe on broken meshes" plus "Use this instead of opening the file" gives real usage context: prefer this over manual file inspection, and it is safe on invalid geometry. However, it never names a sibling alternative or states conditions that would select validate_model or plan_model instead, so routing guidance is only implied.

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