Export a FreeCAD shape to STEP, IGES, BREP, or STL using a target path; the file extension selects the format, and an object name is optional.
Export a shape to STEP/IGES/BREP/STL. Format inferred from path extension.
object: FreeCAD object name (NOT a AnkusDrive handle). If omitted, exports the first shaped object in the active document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| object | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that format is inferred from the path extension and what happens when 'object' is omitted, but it is silent on critical behaviors for a file-writing tool: whether an existing file is overwritten, required permissions, error behavior on invalid extensions, and what is returned. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences plus a targeted parameter note, with the operation and format behavior front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information the agent needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter export with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, format inference, and the optional-parameter fallback, which is most of what is needed. It omits return value/confirmation semantics and overwrite behavior, leaving modest but real gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that the destination format derives from the 'path' extension, and clarifies that 'object' is a FreeCAD object name (not an AnkusDrive handle) with a documented default of exporting the first shaped object. This adds real meaning beyond the bare JSON-schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb+resource (export a shape) and enumerates the supported formats (STEP/IGES/BREP/STL), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from neighboring export tools like export_drawing or sheet_flat_export, but the shape/file-format scope is specific enough to be actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives one concrete usage rule — omit 'object' to export the first shaped object in the active document — which implies when the optional parameter is appropriate. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over sibling exporters (export_drawing, sheet_flat_export) or any prerequisite (e.g., document must be open).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.