Skip to main content
Glama

Sheet Check

sheet_check
Read-only

Check sheet-metal parts for press-brake manufacturability: flags cracks, unsupported flanges, oval holes, and fold collisions, with measured values and limits.

Instructions

Press-brake manufacturability screen for a sheet part — four rules, each with the number it came from:

min_bend_radius — an inside radius below the material's minimum (a corpus value per material: 3t for 6061-T6, 1t for A36, 0.5t for annealed 1100) cracks the outer fibre. min_flange_length — an outer leg under 4t + R has no die shoulder to sit on and dives into the vee. hole_to_bend — a hole whose EDGE is nearer the bend tangent than 2t + R draws into an oval. Holes are read off the real solid, not declared. refold_collision — two features that occupy the same space once folded, found by actually intersecting them rather than by a rule.

A hem is screened as a two-hit hem (bend, then flatten) and exempted from the air-bend radius and flange rules, which would otherwise fail every hem ever drawn. A flat pattern whose feature footprints overlap is a finding too, not a warning dropped on the floor. An unrecognised material degrades to a bend-class fallback WITH an info finding saying so, rather than skipping the rule silently.

min_flange_t / hole_to_bend_t: override the thresholds (multiples of thickness).

fidelity='correlation' with band_pct=None — these are press-brake rules of thumb, thresholds for ranking and gating rather than measured predictions.

Returns {ok, findings, fail_count, rules, min_bend_radius_mm, min_bend_radius_source, flat_size, blank_area_mm2, k_factors, thickness_mm, material, fidelity, band_pct}. Each finding carries {code, severity, message} plus the measured value and the limit it missed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleYes
k_factorNo
bend_tableNo
min_flange_tNo
hole_to_bend_tNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by detailing each rule, hem handling, overlap findings, the unrecognized-material fallback with an info finding, and the fidelity='correlation' approximation. No statement contradicts the 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 description is long but tightly structured: purpose statement, bulleted rules, exception/fallback behavior, parameter overrides, fidelity note, and return contract. It front-loads the core purpose and every sentence carries substantive information without filler.

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?

For a complex analysis tool with no output schema, the description is highly complete: it lists return fields, finding structure, all four rules, exceptions, and fallback behavior. The main omission is fuller semantics for handle, k_factor, and bend_table, but core invocation and interpretation are well covered.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explicitly explains min_flange_t and hole_to_bend_t as threshold overrides in multiples of thickness. However, it leaves handle, k_factor, and bend_table semantically undocumented, which is a meaningful gap given the schema provides only titles.

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 'Press-brake manufacturability screen for a sheet part' and names four concrete rules, giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. This clearly separates it from sheet modeling operations and generic screens in the sibling list.

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 clearly frames when to use this tool: for press-brake manufacturability screening and gating of a sheet part. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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