Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

assess_load_bearing

Read-only

Analyze STL geometry to infer load-bearing behavior, identify load surfaces and weak axes, and recommend a print orientation that reduces layer-direction failure.

Instructions

Analyze load-bearing characteristics of a mesh from its geometry.

        Infers structural behavior by analyzing surface normals, shape type,
        and cross-section distribution:
        - **primary_load_axis**: which direction the part resists force
        - **load_surfaces**: which surfaces bear load (with area fractions)
        - **weak_axis**: the most vulnerable direction for failure
        - **recommended_print_orientation**: how to orient for maximum strength
        - **layer_direction_concern**: how FDM layers affect structural integrity

        This is the difference between "PLA is good for prototypes" (lookup)
        and "this bracket should be printed on its side because the load path
        crosses layer boundaries" (geometric reasoning).

        :param file_path: Path to the STL file.
        :returns: Dict with load analysis.

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": "assess_load_bearing"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesPath to the STL 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 the STL file."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by framing the results as inferences from surface normals, shape type, and cross-section distribution, which tells the agent these are heuristic structural estimates rather than FEA simulation. It does not state failure modes (e.g., invalid STL, non-manifold input) or that results are deterministic.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by a scannable bullet list of returned fields, which is the right ordering. The PLA-prototypes analogy takes a full paragraph to make one point and the trailing ':param/:returns' docstring lines duplicate what precedes them, so there is some trimming available.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema present, the explicit enumeration of returned keys (primary_load_axis, load_surfaces with area fractions, weak_axis, recommended_print_orientation, layer_direction_concern) is exactly what the description needs to supply, and it does. Acceptable-input expectations, such as whether the STL must be manifold or prepared first, are left unstated.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents file_path fully; the description's ':param file_path: Path to the STL file.' merely restates it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Analyze') with a specific resource and scope ('load-bearing characteristics of a mesh from its geometry'), and the bulleted output list makes the deliverable concrete. An agent can immediately distinguish this from neighboring geometry tools like analyze_model_geometry or diagnose_mesh because load analysis is named explicitly.

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 'lookup vs geometric reasoning' contrast gives clear context for when this tool applies: it reasons about a specific part's load path rather than returning generic material advice. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it does not earn a 5.

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