Skip to main content
Glama

validate_generated_mesh

Read-only

Validate a 3D mesh file's geometry by checking format, dimensions, polygon count, and watertightness before further printability analysis.

Instructions

Validate a 3D mesh file's geometry.

        Checks that the file is a valid STL, OBJ, GLB, or 3MF, has reasonable
        dimensions, an acceptable polygon count, and is manifold
        (watertight).  It does not judge whether the part PRINTS (a sound
        mesh can still rest on a point): ``analyze_printability`` gives
        that verdict, and ``validate_and_prepare`` runs the whole
        pre-print check.

        Args:
            file_path: Path to an STL, OBJ, GLB, or 3MF file.
        

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": "validate_generated_mesh"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesPath to an STL, OBJ, GLB, or 3MF 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 an STL, OBJ, GLB, or 3MF file."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context by enumerating the actual validation criteria and clarifying the boundary with printability analysis. It does not, however, describe what a failure looks like or whether the check reports individual issues versus a single pass/fail.

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 purpose and constraints are front-loaded in two tight sentences, and the negative scope is stated before the alternatives, which is the right order for routing. The trailing Args block largely duplicates the schema's own file_path description and is the only wasted material.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it only implies a verdict rather than stating what is returned (boolean, issue list, metrics). Everything else needed to call the tool correctly — scope, formats, alternatives — is present, so the gap is real but narrow.

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% and the single required parameter file_path is documented identically in both schema and the Args block. The description adds no format syntax, path-resolution rules, or relative-vs-absolute guidance, so it earns only the baseline of 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Validate a 3D mesh file's geometry') and enumerates the concrete checks performed: format validity for STL/OBJ/GLB/3MF, dimensions, polygon count, and manifold/watertightness. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools such as analyze_mesh_geometry or mesh_quality_scorecard based on the stated scope.

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 states what the tool does NOT do ('does not judge whether the part PRINTS') and names the two alternatives by name — 'analyze_printability' for the printability verdict and 'validate_and_prepare' for the full pre-print check. This is a genuine when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing statement, not an implication.

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