Skip to main content
Glama

analyze_warping_risk

Assess warping risk of a 3D model by analyzing its geometry and material properties. Identifies factors like large flat surfaces and tall geometry that cause curling and lift, providing actionable recommendations.

Instructions

Analyze warping risk for a 3D model based on geometry and material.

        Examines the mesh for warping risk factors: large flat surfaces that
        tend to curl at corners, tall/narrow geometry prone to thermal
        contraction pulling, and sharp base corners that lift. Cross-references
        with the material's known warping tendency (from thermal properties).

        Returns a risk assessment with:
        - risk_level: "low", "moderate", "high", or "critical"
        - score_deduction: impact on overall printability score
        - large_flat_surfaces: detected flat areas prone to warping
        - height_to_base_ratio: geometry aspect ratio risk factor
        - material_warping_tendency: material's inherent warp behavior
        - recommendations: actionable mitigation advice

        Args:
            file_path: Path to STL or OBJ file to analyze.
            material: Material ID (e.g. "pla", "abs", "petg"). Defaults to PLA.
                Used to look up thermal warping tendency.
            printer_id: Optional registered printer whose real geometry
                and calibration should inform the analysis.

        Examples:
            analyze_warping_risk("/path/to/model.stl", material="abs")
            analyze_warping_risk("/path/to/plate.stl")  # defaults to PLA
        

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialNopla
file_pathYes
printer_idNo
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description describes the analysis and returns a risk assessment, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or computational intensity. It lacks full disclosure of side effects or safety information.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose, details on what it examines, output fields, parameters, and examples. It is concise enough while being thorough; each section adds value, though some wording could be tightened.

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 output schema, the description provides comprehensive information about return fields (risk_level, score_deduction, etc.), parameters with defaults and examples, and the overall workflow. It covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining file_path as 'Path to STL or OBJ file', material with examples and default, and printer_id with its purpose. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, effectively covering all three parameters.

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 clearly states the tool analyzes warping risk for a 3D model based on geometry and material. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_printability' by focusing specifically on warping risk factors.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains what the tool does and provides examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'analyze_printability' or 'analyze_model_geometry'. No when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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

Install Server

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