Skip to main content
Glama

analyze_mesh_geometry

Compute geometric metrics like volume, surface area, overhangs, and a printability score to identify 3D printing issues before slicing.

Instructions

Deep geometric and printability analysis of a 3D mesh.

        Goes beyond basic validation to compute volume, surface area,
        center of mass, overhang detection, connected components (floating
        parts), degenerate triangles, and a composite printability score
        (0-100).

        Use this after generating a model to understand its geometry and
        identify printability issues before sending to the slicer.

        For a STEP/STP CAD file this converts it first and every metric
        below is measured on Kiln's mesh copy — except an added ``exact``
        block, which carries the volume, surface area and envelope read
        from the CAD file's own surfaces.  Those two disagree slightly
        and the exact ones are the part's: quote ``exact`` when telling
        a user how big their CAD part is.  ``mesh_quality_scorecard``
        gives the same file a fuller intake report.

        :param file_path: Path to a mesh (.stl, .obj, .glb) or a CAD file
            (.step, .stp), which is converted automatically.
        :returns: Dict with full mesh analysis metrics, plus ``exact``
            for CAD input.
        

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes
Install Server

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden and succeeds: it discloses CAD conversion, that metrics are measured on a Kiln mesh copy, that an 'exact' block comes from the CAD file's own surfaces, and that mesh and exact values may disagree. It also states return type and score range.

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?

Though fairly detailed, the description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows logically through metrics, usage timing, CAD-specific behavior, parameter docs, and returns. Every sentence contributes actionable information without padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is unusually complete: it covers input formats, the full set of computed metrics, CAD conversion nuances, exact vs expected values, and an alternative tool. An agent has enough to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema only says 'file_path: string'. The description compensates fully by specifying supported input formats (.stl, .obj, .glb and .step/.stp) and noting automatic conversion of CAD files, meaningfully enriching the lone parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Deep geometric and printability analysis of a 3D mesh' and enumerates exact metrics (volume, surface area, center of mass, overhang detection, connected components, degenerate triangles, printability score). It also distinguishes itself from sibling mesh_quality_scorecard by noting that tool gives a fuller intake report, making its scope clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this after generating a model to understand its geometry and identify printability issues before sending to the slicer.' It also gives an alternative ('mesh_quality_scorecard gives the same file a fuller intake report') and notes that STEP/STP files are converted automatically, informing when it can be used.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/codeofaxel/kiln'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server