Skip to main content
Glama

analyze_non_manifold_edges

Count non-manifold edges (boundary, T-junction, manifold) in a 3D model file. Returns edge breakdown, watertight status, and diagnostic message.

Instructions

Count and classify non-manifold edges in a mesh.

        Reports boundary edges (shared by 1 triangle), T-junction edges
        (shared by 3+ triangles), and manifold edges (shared by exactly 2).

        This is the diagnostic version of the manifold check -- use it
        to understand exactly how many edges are problematic before
        deciding whether to repair.

        A STEP/STP CAD file is converted first and the count is taken on
        the converted mesh, because a non-manifold edge is a defect of
        the triangles, not of the shape -- a STEP solid has none to be
        defective.  So on CAD input this measures KILN'S TESSELLATION,
        which is worth knowing (it says whether the conversion came out
        clean) and is not a finding about the user's file.  ``subject``
        says which artifact was measured and ``message`` says it in
        words.  AGENT CONTRACT: when ``subject`` is
        ``"kiln_tessellation"``, carry that attribution through to the
        user -- never report the count as a verdict on their CAD.

        :param file_path: Path to a mesh (.stl, .obj, .glb) or a
            STEP/STP CAD file.
        :returns: Dict with edge count breakdown, watertight status,
            ``subject``, ``message``, and (CAD only) ``converted_from``.
        

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes
Install Server

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden — and delivers exceptionally. It discloses the non-obvious STEP/STP conversion behavior, warns that the count reflects 'KILN'S TESSELLATION' not the user's file, and codifies an 'AGENT CONTRACT' requiring attribution via the subject field. The explicit note that this 'is not a finding about the user's file' is precisely the kind of behavioral nuance that prevents agent misuse.

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?

Front-loaded with a crisp purpose sentence, and each subsequent paragraph addresses a distinct concern (classification semantics, usage timing, CAD caveat, params, returns). The prose is somewhat verbose — the subject/message attribution warning is restated twice — but the repetition serves a genuine safety purpose for agent behavior.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers every gap: input file types, return dict contents ('edge count breakdown, watertight status, subject, message, and (CAD only) converted_from'), and an important behavioral edge case (CAD conversion). Nothing needed for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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?

The schema's bare 'File Path' title conveys almost nothing, so the description must compensate — and does. It documents accepted formats ('.stl, .obj, .glb') and the additional STEP/STP CAD path, transforming an opaque string param into a fully specified input contract. For a single-parameter tool, this is complete coverage.

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 opening sentence 'Count and classify non-manifold edges in a mesh' pairs a specific verb with a clear resource, and the three-way classification (boundary/T-junction/manifold edges) precisely specifies scope. It distinguishes itself from diagnostic siblings like repair_mesh by explicitly labeling itself 'the diagnostic version of the manifold check,' making its role unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit usage timing: 'use it to understand exactly how many edges are problematic before deciding whether to repair.' It clearly positions itself within a workflow (diagnose before repair), but stops short of naming alternatives or stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions, relying on the reader to infer which sibling does the repairing.

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