Skip to main content
Glama

audit_original_design

Audit a 3D model's printability by combining design briefing, mesh validation, orientation analysis, and diagnostics. Get a report with exact changes needed before printing.

Instructions

Run a ruthless audit of an original design before printing.

        Combines design briefing, prompt enhancement, mesh validation,
        printability scoring, orientation analysis, advanced diagnostics,
        and regeneration feedback into a single report.

        Use this after generating or modeling a new part to answer:
        "Is this genuinely ready to print, and if not, what exact changes
        should the agent make next?"

        Args:
            file_path: Path to STL or OBJ file.
            requirements: Functional requirements the design must satisfy.
            material: Optional material constraint (e.g. "petg").
            printer_model: Optional printer model ID (e.g. "bambu_a1").
            build_volume_x: Optional build volume X override in mm.
            build_volume_y: Optional build volume Y override in mm.
            build_volume_z: Optional build volume Z override in mm.
            nozzle_diameter: Printer nozzle diameter in mm.
            layer_height: Layer height in mm.
            max_overhang_angle: Supportless overhang threshold in degrees.
        

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialNo
file_pathYes
layer_heightNo
requirementsYes
printer_modelNo
build_volume_xNo
build_volume_yNo
build_volume_zNo
nozzle_diameterNo
max_overhang_angleNo
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It details the internal steps (design briefing, mesh validation, etc.) and indicates the output is a single report. It does not mention side effects like file modification, but given the audit nature, it is likely read-only. The description adds significant context beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficient: a clear overview, a usage sentence, and a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description explains inputs and the nature of the output (a report answering readiness). However, it lacks details on the report format (structured vs. text) and does not specify if the tool modifies any files. Still, it covers the essential functionality well.

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 description's 'Args' section adds meaningful descriptions for all 10 parameters, including examples (e.g., 'petg', 'bambu_a1') and units (e.g., degrees for max_overhang_angle). The input schema only provides types and defaults, so the description enriches understanding substantially.

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's purpose: 'Run a ruthless audit of an original design before printing.' It lists the specific aspects combined into a report and answers a precise question. No other sibling tool has an identical purpose; this is a comprehensive audit distinct from more focused analysis tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'after generating or modeling a new part.' It also frames the question the tool answers. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, which would improve guidance.

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