Skip to main content
Glama
gchen19

AnkusDrive

by gchen19
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_bearing

Create a fit-envelope solid for a deep-groove ball bearing from a standard designation or explicit bore, OD, and width, sizing the shaft, housing bore, and shoulder spacing.

Instructions

Add a deep-groove ball bearing as an assembly envelope solid: an annular ring (outer-diameter cylinder minus bore cylinder) of the given width, axis along +Z. Balls/races are not modeled — this is the fit envelope a coordinator needs to size the shaft, the housing bore, and the shoulder spacing.

Specify dimensions ONE of two ways:

  • designation: a standard metric series code, looked up in a built-in table. Known: "608", "623", "624", "625", "626", "688", "6000", "6200", "6800", "6900". (e.g. "608" -> bore 8, OD 22, width 7 mm.)

  • bore + outer_diameter + width: explicit dims in mm (all three required). Explicit values override a designation's table values when both are given.

bore: inner-bore diameter mm (sizes the shaft). outer_diameter: OD mm (sizes the housing bore). width: axial length mm (shoulder spacing). placement: optional [x, y, z] mm translation of the bearing's near face.

seals: open (default) | RS | 2RS | RZ | 2RZ | Z | 2Z. It changes no geometry — the envelope is identical — but it IS part of the orderable identity: 608, 608-2Z and 608-2RS are three different purchases with different drag, speed limits and prices. It is folded into the canonical designation stamped on the part ("608-2RS").

A bearing built from raw bore/OD/width with NO designation is a dimensional envelope, not a purchasable part, and is deliberately left undesignated rather than given a made-up catalog number.

Raises ValueError if the designation is unknown and dims are incomplete, or if outer_diameter <= bore.

Returns {handle, name, designation, bore, outer_diameter, width, volume, orderable, catalog}. handle starts "bearing_". designation is None when built from explicit dims; orderable is the designation card, whose own designation carries the seal suffix; catalog is the off-the-shelf verdict (stocked or not, None for an undesignated envelope).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boreNo
nameNoBearing
sealsNoopen
widthNo
placementNo
designationNo
outer_diameterNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does 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 error behavior (ValueError on unknown designation or OD <= bore), the seal-suffix identity semantics, coordinate frame (axis +Z, near-face origin), and the precise return shape including the orderable/catalog distinction. This is far beyond a minimal statement.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded, with the envelope definition first and mechanics after. Slightly long, but every sentence earns its place by answering a real design question; only marginally less tight than an ideal.

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?

For a 7-param assembly-feature tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves nothing an agent needs to call it correctly: input modes, defaults, error cases, coordinate frame, seal identity, and full return-field semantics are all present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description fully compensates: it defines bore/outer_diameter/width in engineering terms ('sizes the shaft', 'sizes the housing bore', 'shoulder spacing'), documents placement as a near-face xyz translation, and enumerates the seals enum values and their meaning. Every one of the 7 params is given engineering context.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add a deep-groove ball bearing as an assembly envelope solid') and immediately scopes what it is and is not ('an annular ring ... Balls/races are not modeled'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_gear/add_sprocket by clarifying this is a fit envelope, not a purchasable modeled component.

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?

Explicitly names two mutually exclusive input paths (designation vs. bore+OD+width) with the rule for what happens when both are given ('Explicit values override'). It also states when an envelope is deliberately unnamed ('a dimensional envelope, not a purchasable part'). Nothing is left ambiguous about how or when to size the call.

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