forge3d-mcp

List Backends

list_backends

Lists every geometry engine with availability, strengths, and weaknesses so you can choose the right backend when the default is not suitable.

Instructions

List every geometry engine with its availability, strengths and weaknesses.

Call this first when a model needs something other than the default. The available flag is ground truth for this machine — do not guess.

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": "list_backends"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.7Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so usefully: it reveals that results include not just names but availability, strengths and weaknesses, and warns that the `available` flag is machine-specific ground truth rather than something to infer. It does not state whether the call has any side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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 paragraphs, zero padding. The resource and payload are front-loaded, and the caveat about the `available` flag follows as a distinct, earned sentence.

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 no-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: which situations warrant calling it and how to interpret the availability field. Return-value detail is legitimately left to the output schema.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing about inputs needs explaining and the description correctly spends no words on them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every geometry engine') and goes further by naming what each entry contains: availability, strengths, weaknesses. This clearly separates it from siblings like plan_model or create_model, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the near-neighbor list_providers.

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?

'Call this first when a model needs something other than the default' gives a concrete trigger condition rather than vague advice. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to call it, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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