Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

compare_mesh_versions

Read-only

Compare two mesh files to quantify geometric changes—volume, surface area, dimensions, center of mass, and Hausdorff distance—and verify whether repairs or rescaling improved the model.

Instructions

Compare two mesh files and report geometric differences.

        Computes volume change, surface area change, dimension deltas,
        center-of-mass shift, the mesh-check delta, and an approximate
        Hausdorff distance showing how far the meshes differ spatially.

        Useful for verifying that a repair, rescale, or regeneration
        actually improved the model.

        :param file_a: Path to the reference (original) mesh.
        :param file_b: Path to the modified mesh.
        :returns: Dict with comparison metrics and ``meshes_identical`` flag.

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_a": "<file_a>",
      "file_b": "<file_b>"
    },
    "name": "compare_mesh_versions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_aYesPath to the reference (original) mesh.
file_bYesPath to the modified mesh.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / file_a / description
      Added value: +"Path to the reference (original) mesh."
    • addedInput schema / properties / file_b / description
      Added value: +"Path to the modified mesh."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the exact comparison metrics computed, including volume change, surface area change, dimension deltas, center-of-mass shift, mesh-check delta, and approximate Hausdorff distance. It also notes the meshes_identical return flag. It does not cover error behavior, supported file formats, or performance characteristics.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and metric list, then adds a concise use case and parameter/return notes. The Sphinx-style parameter lines duplicate the schema descriptions and could be trimmed, but overall the text is structured and not wasteful.

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, the description usefully explains that the result is a dictionary of comparison metrics plus a meshes_identical flag. It also enumerates the metrics, which is important for understanding the return value. It could say more about file format expectations or failure modes, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented as paths to the reference and modified meshes. The description repeats that meaning rather than adding new semantics such as supported formats, relative vs absolute path behavior, or constraints. This is the baseline case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: comparing two mesh files and reporting geometric differences. It also lists the exact metrics computed, which makes the tool's purpose concrete. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this quantitative comparison from siblings such as visual_diff_meshes or verify_mesh_measurements.

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?

It gives a clear use context: verifying that a repair, rescale, or regeneration actually improved the model. That is enough for an agent to recognize when the tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit routing guidance.

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