Skip to main content
Glama

analyze_non_manifold_edges

Read-only

Count and classify non-manifold edges in a mesh or converted CAD file—boundary, T-junction, and manifold—to diagnose defects before deciding whether repair is needed.

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``.
        

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_non_manifold_edges"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesPath to a mesh (.stl, .obj, .glb) or a STEP/STP CAD file.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / file_path / description
      Added value: +"Path to a mesh (.stl, .obj, .glb) or a STEP/STP CAD file."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds substantive behavior: STEP/STP files are silently converted first and the count is taken on the tessellation, not the user's solid. The AGENT CONTRACT clause about carrying attribution through to the user is unusually valuable disclosure. It stops short of describing performance or error behavior on unreadable files.

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: the core purpose and the diagnostic-vs-repair guidance come first, and the CAD caveat follows. The all-caps AGENT CONTRACT paragraph is somewhat heavy and the edge-class enumeration partially restates the opening sentence, but nothing is truly wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the return keys (edge count breakdown, watertight status, subject, message, converted_from). Combined with the CAD attribution rule, an agent has everything needed to call the tool and to report the result honestly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining what actually happens to a STEP/STP argument (conversion before counting) — information the schema does not convey.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Count and classify non-manifold edges in a mesh") and immediately enumerates the three edge classes reported. An agent can distinguish this from repair_mesh or diagnose_mesh purely from the first two sentences.

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?

States explicitly that this is the diagnostic counterpart to the manifold check and that it should be run before deciding whether to repair, which routes the agent to the correct downstream sibling. The CAD-input caveat further constrains when the result is meaningful.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools