Skip to main content
Glama

chamfer_edges

Bevel selected edges of a FreeCAD Part with a symmetric size, then validate the result and return the edited solid.

Instructions

Chamfer (bevel) specific edges of a shaped Part object — the direct-shape counterpart to fillet_edges.

handle: handle of the object to chamfer (e.g. 'box_1', a boolean result). edges: non-empty list of edge references. Each may be a tag ('e_...' from list_edges, preferred), an 'EdgeN' string, or a bare 1-based integer index. size: symmetric chamfer leg distance in mm (applied equally to both faces meeting at the edge, i.e. dist1 = dist2 = size). Must be > 0. Default 1.0. name: label for the resulting feature object. Default 'Chamfer'. per_edge: add the edges one at a time, validating after each, instead of in a single apply. Slower; for geometry known to be blend-hostile. allow_partial: accept a partial result instead of aborting. Off by default.

The base object is hidden (consumed into the chamfer feature). Validated exactly like fillet_edges (issue #283) — Shape.isValid(), unchanged solid count, no growth of the tight bounding box — before a handle is issued.

Returns {handle, name, volume (mm^3), edges (resolved 1-based indices actually chamfered), checks {valid, solids, envelope_ok, envelope_growth_mm, envelope_tol_mm}, mode ('batch' | 'per_edge'), partial}; when partial is True, also skipped_edges and a warnings entry. On a failed check the feature is removed from the document and BlendCheckFailed is raised naming the offending edges — never a handle to corrupt geometry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoChamfer
sizeNo
edgesYes
handleYes
per_edgeNo
allow_partialNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the base object is hidden/consumed, that validation runs (isValid, unchanged solid count, bounded envelope growth) before a handle is issued, and that on failure the feature is removed and BlendCheckFailed is raised rather than returning a handle to corrupt geometry. Failure and partial-result semantics are unusually explicit.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then a tidy per-parameter block, then behavior and return shape—easy to scan. Slight redundancy in restating schema defaults (1.0, 'Chamfer') keeps it just short of maximal conciseness, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies the full return object (handle, name, volume, resolved edges, checks, mode, partial plus warnings) and all failure paths. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this mutation correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all six parameters with meaning, defaults, and constraints (size in mm with dist1=dist2, edges accepting tags/EdgeN/integer indices, per_edge and allow_partial behavior). This is exactly the compensation a 0%-coverage schema requires.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Chamfer (bevel) specific edges of a shaped Part object') and immediately anchors it against a sibling by calling it 'the direct-shape counterpart to fillet_edges'. An agent can distinguish it from fillet_edges and from partdesign_chamfer without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'direct-shape counterpart to fillet_edges' framing gives clear context for when this tool applies, and it explains when to reach for per_edge ('geometry known to be blend-hostile') and allow_partial. It stops short of explicitly routing between chamfer_edges and the sibling partdesign_chamfer, so there is no stated when-not.

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