Skip to main content
Glama

sheet_check

Screen sheet-metal parts for press-brake manufacturability: catch cracked bends, short flanges, stretched holes, and folded collisions before fabrication.

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

A4/5.0
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 richly: it discloses how hems are screened (two-hit, exempted from air-bend rules), that overlapping flat-pattern footprints are reported as a finding rather than dropped, and that an unrecognized material degrades to a bend-class fallback WITH an info finding rather than silently skipping. It also states fidelity semantics ('correlation', band_pct=None means ranking/gating, not measured predictions).

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?

It is long but front-loaded and organized as a labeled rule list followed by exceptions, overrides and the return shape, so each sentence adds information. It is close to the upper bound of acceptable length, with some minor redundancy between the rule bullets and the explanatory paragraph.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the return object fields and the per-finding shape, and it covers rule behavior, exceptions and degradation paths thoroughly. The remaining gaps are the unexplained k_factor/bend_table parameters and the meaning of handle.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet only min_flange_t and hole_to_bend_t are explained ('multiples of thickness'). The non-obvious k_factor and bend_table parameters are left completely undefined, and handle is not described as a part/geometry reference, leaving a substantial gap for a 5-param tool.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: a 'press-brake manufacturability screen for a sheet part,' and enumerates the four concrete rules (min_bend_radius, min_flange_length, hole_to_bend, refold_collision) it applies. This distinguishes it from generic siblings like dfm_check, plate_check, and the sheet_* geometry family, so an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied — the tool is a pre-manufacturing screen applied to a sheet part — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or a named alternative (e.g., dfm_check vs this). The description clarifies internal rule conditions and the hem exemption, which is useful, but does not tell the agent when to prefer this tool over its many checking siblings.

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