forge3d-mcp

Repair Model

repair_model

Repair broken 3D meshes by merging vertices, filling holes, fixing normals, reorienting geometry, and optionally decimating; writes a new file and returns the actions taken.

Instructions

Merge, drop, fill, re-orient — and optionally decimate — a broken mesh.

Writes a new file (never overwrites the input unless you pass the same path). Returns the actions taken so you can tell a human what changed.

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": "repair_model"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`out_path`	No
`fill_holes`	No
`decimate_to`	No
`fix_normals`	No

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

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important traits: it writes a new file rather than mutating the input, and it returns the actions taken. It does not state whether the default repair path is destructive to the target out_path, what happens on unrecoverable geometry, or whether the operation is idempotent or expensive.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action set and followed by the file/return contract. The dash-heavy phrasing is stylistically loose but no sentence is wasted; the closing clause about telling a human what changed justifies the return-value mention.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be spelled out, and the description correctly points at 'actions taken'. However, for a five-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the definition leaves meaningful gaps around decimate_to units, default repair behavior, and failure modes.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate; it partially does, mapping 'fill' to fill_holes, 'decimate' to decimate_to, 're-orient' to fix_normals, and explaining out_path's overwrite rule. It never clarifies what decimate_to counts (faces vs vertices), and 'merge'/'drop' do not map to any visible parameter, leaving the mapping ambiguous.

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 a concrete operation set (merge, drop, fill, re-orient, optional decimate) on a specific resource (a broken mesh), so an agent can tell it apart from validate_model, inspect_model, and convert_model. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead when the mesh is merely unvalidated rather than broken.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'broken mesh', which signals the precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no routing to plan_model, validate_model, or review_model as alternatives. The one explicit guidance given is about output behavior (same path to overwrite), not about tool selection.

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