forge3d-mcp

Model Card

model_card

Summarize a 3D model file into a compact ~300-token description without reading raw mesh data, then pass the path onward for safe inspection.

Instructions

A ~300-token summary of a model file — the only safe way to describe it in context.

Never read mesh data directly; call this and pass the path onward.

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": "model_card"
  }
}

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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does contribute two useful facts: the output is bounded at roughly 300 tokens and it is the safe route for describing a model in context. It says nothing about permissions, failure modes for a bad path, or whether large files cause latency, though the presence of an output schema offsets the need to describe return values.

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, with the primary framing (what it returns, and the token budget) front-loaded before the imperative. Nothing is redundant and the size matches a one-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and ships an output schema, so the remaining burden is modest, but the description leaves open what a path is relative to and how it behaves on an invalid or non-model file. It is adequate to enable a correct call, not complete enough to predict edge-case behavior.

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate, and it only does so partially by implying path points at the model file being summarized. It adds no guidance on absolute vs relative paths or what constitutes a valid target, leaving the one parameter under-specified.

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 names the resource (a model file) and the produced artifact (a ~300-token summary), which is unambiguous about what the call yields. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings like inspect_model or review_model via 'the only safe way to describe it in context', but it never names those siblings explicitly, so the separation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

There is one explicit directive: never read mesh data directly, use this instead and pass the path onward. That is real usage steering, but it only rules out one anti-pattern and says nothing about when to prefer this over inspect_model, validate_model, or review_model, which occupy adjacent territory.

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