Measures STL, 3MF, or OBJ meshes to report bounding box, volume, estimated PLA mass, face count, and watertightness so you can verify a model before printing.
Mede um STL/3MF/OBJ: caixa envolvente, volume, massa estimada em PLA, faces, fechamento (watertight).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the computed metrics and one behavioral assumption ('massa estimada em PLA'), and the verb 'Mede' implies a non-destructive read. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, units, or error conditions.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that lists the operation and its outputs without filler. Every element contributes to identifying what the tool measures.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained in detail, and the description covers the main purpose and supported formats. Still, for a one-parameter tool with no annotations, it leaves the path parameter and measurement units implicit, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.
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?
The schema documents only one required parameter, 'path', with 0% description coverage. The description partially compensates by naming the supported file types (STL/3MF/OBJ), which tells the agent what kind of path is expected, but it never explains path format, relative vs. absolute paths, or other path-related requirements.
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 uses a specific verb ('Mede') and resource ('STL/3MF/OBJ') and enumerates the measured outputs (bounding box, volume, PLA mass estimate, faces, watertightness). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling mesh_check_printability, which may also involve watertightness.
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?
The description states what is measured but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as mesh_check_printability or mesh_render, and it names no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only loosely implied by the measurement verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.