Skip to main content
Glama

Chamfer Edges

chamfer_edges

Bevel selected edges of a 3D part by a specified distance, with validation to ensure the result remains a valid 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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the base object is hidden/consumed, validation matches fillet_edges with specific checks, the feature is removed on failure, BlendCheckFailed is raised, and the tool never returns a handle to corrupt geometry. This is rich behavioral context the structured annotations do not provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well organized: purpose first, then parameter semantics, then behavior and return shape. No sentence is filler; even the return-object enumeration earns its place because there is no output schema.

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 mutating, failure-prone tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It covers accepted input forms, default behavior, failure cleanup, exception naming, and the full returned result structure, including partial-result extras. An agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret outcomes.

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 bears the full burden, and it succeeds. It explains handle, edges and its three accepted reference forms, size as symmetric leg distance, name as a feature label, per_edge's validation cadence, and allow_partial's tradeoff. Every parameter gains meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Chamfer (bevel) specific edges of a shaped Part object.' It also distinguishes itself as the 'direct-shape counterpart to fillet_edges,' immediately separating it from a key sibling and making its role unmistakable.

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 description gives clear context for parameter choices, such as preferring 'e_' tags from list_edges and using per_edge 'for geometry known to be blend-hostile.' It names fillet_edges as a counterpart, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer chamfer over fillet or mention partdesign_chamfer as an alternative.

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