Skip to main content
Glama
gchen19

AnkusDrive

by gchen19
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Check Shape

check_shape
Read-only

Verify a shape's geometry and topology before building on it. Check if it's a single watertight solid, and get volume and face/edge counts for quality control.

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description states it is inspection only, mutates nothing, returns no handle, and does NOT auto-repair. It also discloses the watertight-vs-airtight nuance and that diagnostics are printed to the worker log when invalid.

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 longer than average but every section earns its place: purpose/caveat, usage, parameter, and return dictionary, which acts as the de facto output schema. Key constraints are front-loaded and the return field list is clearly structured.

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, yet the description provides a full field-by-field response contract including types, units, whether fields are conditional, and the meaning of watertight_solid. Combined with the usage and safety caveats, an agent has enough to call and interpret the result correctly.

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 handle parameter is explained as 'the object to inspect,' giving semantic role beyond the raw string type in the schema. It doesn't detail where to obtain handles or whether they are registered identifiers, but with a single parameter the added meaning is sufficient.

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: checking a shaped object's geometry validity and topology. It also explicitly contrasts with check_airtight_path, making the scope (shape watertightness vs flow-path airtightness) unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'as a guard after booleans/sweeps/imports' before building. It also names the alternative check_airtight_path and the condition (ducts/manifolds/adapters) where the sibling is preferred.

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