Skip to main content
Glama

mesh_quality_scorecard

Assess a mesh or CAD file for 3D printing. Meshes get a graded scorecard (printability, structure, efficiency, quality); CAD files get an intake report with exact measurements.

Instructions

Assess a model — a graded scorecard for a mesh, an intake report for a CAD file.

        **For a mesh** (.stl, .obj, .glb) it evaluates four dimensions:
        - **Printability** (35%): overhangs, manifold, support needs
        - **Structural** (25%): aspect ratio, base stability, component count
        - **Efficiency** (20%): fill ratio, support waste
        - **Quality** (20%): triangle density, degenerate count

        and returns per-factor scores, an overall 0-100 score, and a
        letter grade (A-F).  ``subject`` is ``"mesh"``.

        **For a CAD file** (.step, .stp) it returns an INTAKE REPORT and
        deliberately no letter grade.  ``subject`` is ``"cad_file"``,
        ``grade`` is null, and ``grade_withheld`` says why: 20% of that
        score measures Kiln's own tessellation, so the identical part
        would grade differently depending on which converter is installed
        on the machine that read it.  Instead you get three bands:

        - ``exact`` — read from the user's file by the CAD kernel:
          volume, surface area, envelope, validity, solid/shell/face
          counts, in mm.  These match their CAD package to the decimal
          and are the numbers to quote back to them.
        - ``measured`` — what genuinely needs triangles (overhangs,
          stability, floating parts), with the conversion named and this
          part's own conversion difference stated.
        - ``about_our_copy`` — triangle and degenerate counts for Kiln's
          generated mesh, as counts, never scored.

        When quoting a CAD part's size to a user, quote ``exact`` —
        ``about_our_copy`` describes Kiln's mesh, not their design.

        :param file_path: Path to a mesh (.stl, .obj, .glb) or a CAD file
            (.step, .stp).
        :returns: Dict with scores and a grade for a mesh; the three-band
            intake report with ``grade: null`` for a CAD file.
        

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes
Install Server

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses behavior: it explains for meshes the scoring dimensions and weights, and for CAD it details the three-band output, the reason grade is null (converter-dependent tessellation), and that 'about_our_copy' counts are never scored. This is exceptionally transparent, even explaining measurement methodology.

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 long but highly structured with bullet points, bold labels, and clear sections. Every sentence adds value, covering two distinct use cases and their outputs. It could be slightly shortened, but the thoroughness justifies the length.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must fully describe returns. It does so exhaustively: for meshes, it lists dimensions, weights, and grade; for CAD, it details all three bands and their contents. It also covers edge cases like null grade and the difference between measured and exact data. Nothing is left unexplained.

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?

Though the schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description compensates fully by explaining file_path accepts mesh or CAD file extensions (.stl, .obj, .glb, .step, .stp). This adds concrete format guidance beyond the bare schema, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 distinguishes two modes: mesh assessment and CAD intake report. It specifies the exact verbs ('assess', 'returns a graded scorecard', 'returns an intake report') and the resource inputs (.stl, .obj, .glb vs .step, .stp). The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from siblings, as it is the only tool focused on quality scoring.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly explains when to use for meshes and CAD files, and provides critical usage guidance such as quoting 'exact' measurements for CAD parts. It warns against using 'about_our_copy' for user-facing sizes and explains why grade is withheld, giving clear context on when to expect a grade vs an intake report.

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

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