Skip to main content
Glama
gchen19

AnkusDrive

by gchen19
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

check_shape

Validate a shaped object's geometry and topology before building on it. Returns watertight-solid status plus volume, solid, shell, face, and edge counts without repairing or modifying.

Instructions

Check a shaped object's geometry validity and topology before you build on it. Inspection only — measures, returns no handle, mutates nothing, and does NOT auto-repair. Use it as a guard after booleans/sweeps/imports to confirm you have one clean watertight solid.

Note: a watertight solid can still have a BLOCKED or LEAKY enclosed-flow path — watertightness says the shell is closed, not that an internal channel is unobstructed and leak-free. For ducts/manifolds/adapters use check_airtight_path(inlet, outlet) to verify the flow path.

handle: the object to inspect.

Returns a dict (volumes in mm3): valid (bool) OCC topology/geometry is sound watertight_solid (bool) exactly one solid AND valid AND closed — the 'safe to keep building' verdict shape_type (str) e.g. 'Solid', 'Shell', 'Compound', 'Wire' closed (bool) no free boundary edges solids (int) number of solids (want 1 for a part) shells (int) number of shells faces (int) number of faces edges (int) number of edges volume_mm3 (float) total volume (0 for open/2D shapes) is_null (bool) the shape is empty check (str) present only when valid is False — diagnostics were printed to the worker log check_error (str) present only if the diagnostic pass itself raised

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleYes

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: 'Inspection only — measures, returns no handle, mutates nothing, and does NOT auto-repair.' It also clarifies the crucial semantic caveat that watertightness does not imply an unobstructed internal path, and discloses when diagnostic fields appear.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the intent, guard usage, and caveat before a well-structured field-by-field return list. It is somewhat long, but nearly every line (repair disclaimer, airtight caveat, conditional fields) earns its place for an inspection tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by fully enumerating and explaining the returned dict fields (valid, watertight_solid, shape_type, closed, solids, volume_mm3, check, check_error). Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result or know the tool's limits is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single required handle param has 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so adequately with 'handle: the object to inspect,' which conveys the parameter's role, though it adds no format or acquisition guidance (e.g., where handles come from).

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 ('Check a shaped object's geometry validity and topology') and immediately scopes it against siblings by pointing ducts/manifolds/adapters to check_airtight_path. An agent can distinguish this inspection tool from the flow-path checker without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit when ('use it as a guard after booleans/sweeps/imports to confirm you have one clean watertight solid') and names the alternative tool (check_airtight_path(inlet, outlet)) for the case where the concern is an internal channel rather than shell closure.

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