Skip to main content
Glama

Fillet Edges

fillet_edges

Fillets edges on a Part object with a specified radius, automatically validating the result to ensure a valid, uncorrupted solid.

Instructions

Fillet edges of a shaped Part object. edges accepts tags (e_... from list_edges, preferred), 'EdgeN' strings, or bare 1-based ints. radius is the blend radius in mm (> 0).

Every result is validated before a handle comes back (issue #283): this OCC build's fillet is edge- and order-sensitive enough to produce corrupt geometry with no exception at all — a 20 mm cube filleted on all 12 edges at r=11 returns one solid with a LARGER volume and a 13 mm larger bounding box. The checks are Shape.isValid(), an unchanged solid count, and no growth of the tight bounding box (a fillet only removes or holds the envelope).

per_edge: skip the single-shot apply and add the edges one at a time, validating after each. Slower (one recompute per edge); for geometry already known to be blend-hostile. allow_partial: accept a partial result instead of aborting. Off by default.

Returns {handle, name, volume (mm^3), edges (the 1-based indices actually filleted), checks {valid, solids, envelope_ok, envelope_growth_mm, envelope_tol_mm}, mode ('batch' | 'per_edge'), partial}. When partial is True the reply also carries skipped_edges and a warnings entry saying the solid is NOT the part that was asked for.

On failure the handler retries per edge to find the culprits, removes the failed feature from the document and raises BlendCheckFailed naming the offending edges and the subset that does fillet cleanly. It never returns a handle to corrupt geometry, and never quietly drops a fillet unless allow_partial was asked for.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
edgesYes
handleYes
radiusNo
per_edgeNo
allow_partialNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses exact validation checks (Shape.isValid, solid count, bounding-box envelope), failure retry/removal behavior, the BlendCheckFailed error, and the guarantee to never return corrupt geometry or silently drop fillets. This goes far beyond the sparse annotations.

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 text is long but deliberately structured: operation, parameters, validation rationale, option behavior, return contract, failure contract. The concrete 20 mm cube example justifies the validation section, and no sentence appears wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotated parameter descriptions, the description covers inputs, modes, return fields, validation, and failure paths comprehensively. The only meaningful gap is that the required `handle` parameter is never explained as the target object reference.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by defining edge input formats, radius units and positive constraint, and both boolean modes. The required `handle` parameter is still unexplained as the identifier of the Part being modified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names a concrete action and object: 'Fillet edges of a shaped Part object.' Edge-selection formats and validation behavior clarify what this tool does, but the description does not explicitly distinguish it from close siblings like partdesign_fillet or chamfer_edges.

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?

It gives clear usage context for its options: per_edge is recommended for 'geometry already known to be blend-hostile' and allow_partial changes abort behavior. However, it never states when a user should prefer a sibling tool or when fillet_edges should not be used.

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