Segment a mesh and detect planar, cylindrical, spherical, and conical surfaces without writing STEP, so you can review detected features before CAD conversion.
Segment a mesh and report detected surfaces without writing STEP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tol | No | ||
| cones | No | ||
| spheres | No | ||
| cylinders | No | ||
| input_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that segmentation happens and no STEP file is written, but it omits what the 'report' contains, whether the mesh is modified, how tolerance affects detection, and any return or side-effect details.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The clipped 'without writing STEP' phrasing is slightly awkward but still useful.
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 five-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It states the high-level purpose but leaves parameter behavior, output shape, and operational constraints undocumented.
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%, and the description does not mention any of the five parameters. Terms like 'tol', 'cones', 'spheres', and 'cylinders' are left entirely unexplained beyond their schema titles and defaults.
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 and resource: 'Segment a mesh' and 'report detected surfaces'. It also distinguishes the operation from a conversion/write path by saying 'without writing STEP', though it does not name the sibling tools it differs from.
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 phrase 'without writing STEP' implies an analysis-only usage context and suggests it is not the conversion tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'convert', 'report', or the export siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.