Skip to main content
Glama

analyze_warping_risk

Assess warping risk of 3D models by examining geometry and material properties, providing risk level and actionable mitigation advice.

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.

        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
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool does and returns, but does not disclose potential side effects, limitations, or performance considerations. For a read-only analysis tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 paragraphs and bullet points, front-loading the purpose. While clear, it could be slightly more concise; however, it earns its length by providing comprehensive details.

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 fully explains return fields and their meaning. It covers inputs, process, and outputs with examples, making it complete for the tool's complexity and parameter count.

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 input schema has no descriptions, but the description adds meaning: file_path is specified as 'Path to STL or OBJ file', material is explained with example values and its role in looking up thermal properties. Examples further clarify usage. This significantly compensates for the 0% schema 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 description clearly states the tool analyzes warping risk for 3D models based on geometry and material, with explicit mention of factors like large flat surfaces and tall/narrow geometry. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_mesh_geometry by focusing specifically on warping risk.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implicitly suggests use for warping risk assessment but offers no context for decision-making among similar analysis tools.

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