Scale (uniformly or per axis) and rotate a 3D object around its center without moving it off the print bed.
Scale (uniform or per axis) and rotate an object around its center. It stays on the bed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scale | No | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| rotate_x | No | ||
| rotate_y | No | ||
| rotate_z | No | ||
| scale_xyz | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does contribute two genuinely useful behavioral facts: rotation pivots around the object's center and the object remains on the bed (no Z displacement). However, it says nothing about whether the change is reversible/undoable, whether it requires the object to be selected or printable, or what happens to supports/placement after scaling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, no filler, with the operation stated first and the key constraint (stays on bed) appended. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a six-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description covers purpose and pivot behavior but leaves rotation units, parameter defaults, and any failure/return behavior undocumented. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that scaling can be uniform or per-axis (distinguishing scale from scale_xyz) and that rotation is about the object center, but it omits the critical unit for rotate_x/y/z (degrees vs radians) and gives no hint about defaults or the required object identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb pair and resource — scale and rotate an object — so the operation is unmistakable. It stops short of differentiating from adjacent siblings such as orient_object or mirror_object, which also manipulate object orientation, so an agent must infer the boundary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus orient_object, move_object, or mirror_object, and no prerequisites are stated. Only the implied 'if you want to scale/rotate, use this' is present, which matches the calibration's no-guidance band.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.