Skip to main content
Glama

Sheet Unfold

sheet_unfold

Flatten a sheet metal part into its cut blank, detailing each bend with k-factor or bend-table allowances, and optionally build the flat solid for export or nesting.

Instructions

Develop a sheet part into its flat pattern — the blank the part is cut from — and report every bend.

The flat pattern is derived from the bend tree, not reverse-engineered out of the fused solid, so it is exact rather than fitted: each bend contributes its bend allowance BA = angle·(R + K·t), the arc length of the neutral fibre.

k_factor: pins K for every bend. bend_table: a shop's own measured rows [{thickness_mm, inner_radius_mm, angle_deg, allowance_mm | deduction_mm}] — a matching row OUTRANKS the chart, because the shop's press is the ground truth for the shop's press. Without either, K comes from a press-brake corpus keyed by material and r/t. WHICHEVER IT IS, IT IS ECHOED BACK per bend as k_factor + k_source: a flat length whose K you cannot see is a number you cannot check.

build: also create the flat blank as a real solid (holes included) at origin in the XY plane, so it can be measured, exported or nested.

Fidelity: 'exact' only when EVERY bend's K was supplied or table-derived — BA given K is pure arithmetic. One corpus-defaulted bend makes the development a 'correlation' with band_pct, and developed_band_mm gives the resulting millimetre spread of the blank across that K band.

Returns {ok, handle?, name?, volume?, outline, holes, bend_lines, bends, regions, flat_size, flat_bbox, flat_area_mm2, blank_area_mm2, blank_volume_mm3, thickness, material, fidelity, band_pct, developed_band_mm, warnings} — regions being each flat region's polygon, which is what lets the whole report be handed straight back to sheet_refold. Each bend row carries angle_deg, direction, inner_radius_mm, leg_tangent_mm, outer_length_mm, bend_allowance_mm, bend_deduction_mm, outside_setback_mm, k_factor, k_source, and the bend_line / tangent_start / tangent_end segments in flat coordinates. ok=False means the blank cannot be cut as drawn — two feature footprints overlap — with warnings naming which.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoSheetFlat
buildNo
handleYes
originNo
k_factorNo
bend_tableNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description discloses that the flat pattern is derived from the bend tree rather than reverse-engineered, explains K-factor precedence, defines the fidelity distinction between 'exact' and 'correlation', and states failure conditions for overlapping footprints. This is rich behavioral context.

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 description is long, but it is densely packed and front-loaded with the core purpose. The extended return-field enumeration is justified because there is no output schema. The formatting is somewhat wall-of-text, costing a point against perfect conciseness.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given six parameters, no output schema, and a non-trivial operation, the description is exceptionally complete: it details the full return contract, K-source selection order, fidelity semantics, build behavior, and an error scenario. This is more than enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it explains k_factor as pinning K, bend_table as shop-measured rows that outrank the chart, build as creating a solid blank at origin, and origin's XY-plane placement. Only self-evident parameters like handle and name are left to the schema 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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Develop a sheet part into its flat pattern' and 'report every bend.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from nearby siblings like sheet_refold and sheet_flat_export by emphasizing the unfolded blank and bend reporting.

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 gives strong contextual guidance: it explains that the result can be measured, exported, nested, or handed back to sheet_refold. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the use case is unmistakable.

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