forge3d-mcp

Validate Model

validate_model

Check a 3D mesh against a delivery profile such as print, web, game, or CAD. Returns per-check hints, flagging errors as blockers and warnings as judgement calls.

Instructions

Check a mesh against a delivery profile: print, web, game, cad or any.

Each failure carries a hint. ok is false only when an error-severity check fails — warnings are judgement calls, errors are blockers.

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": "validate_model"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`path`	Yes
`spec`	No
`profile`	No	any

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

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: every failure carries a `hint`, and `ok` is false only on error-severity failures while warnings are advisory. That severity model is non-obvious and useful. It stops short of stating that the tool is purely read-only with no side effects, or how strict the 'any' profile is.

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 core action and the profile options front-loaded, followed by the pass/fail semantics. Nothing is padded or restated from the title.

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 return-value explanation is optional, and the severity note is a bonus. Still, for a tool with a totally opaque `spec` parameter and no annotations, the description should say what `spec` accepts and whether validation is read-only and side-effect free.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for three parameters. The description usefully enumerates the allowed `profile` values (print, web, game, cad, any), which the schema does not encode as an enum, but `path` and especially `spec` — an untyped object/null — are left entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot tell whether `spec` is an inline custom profile or overrides.

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 ('Check a mesh against a delivery profile') and enumerates the profile values, which lets an agent distinguish it from inspection-oriented siblings like inspect_model or review_model. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, but the validation framing is unambiguous.

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 delivery-profile framing — you run it before shipping to print/web/game/cad. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus review_model, inspect_model, or checklist, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. whether the model must be converted/planned first).

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