Generates a solid surface at a specified sigma contour level from a loaded map, optionally limited to a selection, to visualize density boundaries.
Creates a solid isosurface
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the surface object. | |
| level | Yes | Contour level in sigma. | |
| selection | No | Restrict the surface to the region around this selection. | all |
| map_object | Yes | Name of a loaded map. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.1Input schema / properties / level / descriptionAdded value: +"Contour level in sigma."Input schema / properties / map_object / descriptionAdded value: +"Name of a loaded map."Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"Name for the surface object."Input schema / properties / selection / descriptionAdded value: +"Restrict the surface to the region around this selection."v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this mutates state (readOnlyHint=false), is idempotent, and is non-destructive. The description adds only the word 'solid'; it does not say whether the new object becomes visible, is added to the session, or can be re-run safely with the same name, and it does not say what happens to an existing object sharing that name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It is efficient, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four parameters, an output schema, and near-identical siblings such as isomesh and spheroid, the definition should at minimum state that it builds a surface from a loaded density map and how it differs from the mesh variant. Nothing an agent needs beyond the bare action is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter carries its own description (name, level in sigma, selection region, loaded map name), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, which meets the baseline 3 but no higher.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Creates a solid isosurface'), and 'solid' hints at the difference from a mesh-based surface. However, it never names the obvious sibling isomesh, so an agent must infer which of the two surface-building tools to pick.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of prerequisites such as needing a loaded map, no statement of when to prefer this over isomesh or density_view, and no exclusions. The agent has to reconstruct usage entirely from the parameter names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.