Calculate the largest uniform scale that lets every part of a 3D printing kit print on the specified bed. Provide part paths, bed dimensions, and nozzle size to get the recommended scale.
Find the largest scale at which EVERY part of a kit prints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bed_x_mm | No | Default: 256.0. | |
| bed_y_mm | No | Default: 256.0. | |
| bed_z_mm | No | Default: 256.0. | |
| nozzle_mm | No | ||
| part_paths | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the core optimization objective but not whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, how failure/no-feasible-scale cases are handled, or whether it has any side effects.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the 'EVERY part' constraint is emphasized efficiently.
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?
For a nontrivial five-parameter advisory computation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits return value details, feasibility semantics, parameter expectations, and any indication of what the agent should do with the result.
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?
The description provides no parameter-level detail, and schema coverage is only 60%. The part_paths and nozzle_mm parameters are undocumented, and the description does not explain units, path format, or how bed and nozzle dimensions affect the result.
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 states a specific verb and resource: find the largest scale for an entire kit. The 'EVERY part of a kit' scope distinguishes it from individual-part scaling tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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?
It implies this is for scaling multi-part kits, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as scale_mesh_to_fit or verify_mesh_fit. An agent must infer the use case from the one-line purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.