Skip to main content
Glama

sheet_hem

Fold a 180-degree hem back on itself to stiffen a free edge and bury the sharp cut line, producing safe-to-handle sheet-metal parts with closed or open styles.

Instructions

Fold a hem back on itself — the 180-degree return that stiffens a free edge and buries the sharp cut line so the part is safe to handle.

kind: 'closed' (inside radius t/2, gap t) or 'open' (radius t, gap 2t). radius_mm / gap_mm: override the style directly; the gap between the returned leg and the parent is exactly 2R, so gap wins as radius = gap/2.

length_mm is ALWAYS the return leg measured from the end of the bend: a 180-degree bend has no virtual apex to dimension to — the outside surfaces are parallel and never meet — so an 'outer' dimension would be infinite. For the same reason a hem reports a bend allowance but no bend deduction, and sheet_check screens it as a two-hit hem (bend, then flatten in a hemming die) exempt from the air-bend radius and flange rules. A teardrop hem wraps past 180 degrees and is out of scope.

Returns the same dict sheet_flange does, plus {hem_kind, gap_mm}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
edgeYes
kindNoclosed
nameNoSheetHem
gap_mmNo
handleYes
width_mmNo
directionNoup
length_mmYes
offset_mmNo
radius_mmNo
feature_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it explains that length_mm is always the return leg, that no bend deduction is reported, and that sheet_check treats this as a two-hit hem exempt from air-bend rules. It also states the return shape includes {hem_kind, gap_mm}, though it does not discuss document mutation or handle lifecycle.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with the conceptual meaning of a hem, then moves to parameter overrides and geometric consequences. It is dense but each sentence adds domain-specific value, with no obvious filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For an 11-parameter tool with no annotations, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is strong on hem semantics and return values. However, it does not cover several required or common parameters such as handle, edge, width_mm, direction, and offset_mm, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds important meaning for kind, radius_mm, gap_mm, and length_mm, but leaves edge, handle, width_mm, direction, offset_mm, name, and feature_name unexplained.

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 a precise verb and resource: 'Fold a hem back on itself — the 180-degree return...'. It clearly distinguishes this from a generic bend and from siblings by naming sheet_flange and sheet_check, and by declaring teardrop hems out of scope.

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 explains the two supported hem styles, how radius_mm and gap_mm override style, and that a teardrop hem is out of scope. It also situates the tool relative to sheet_check, though it does not explicitly say when to choose a hem over a flange in general.

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