Retrieve a part’s solid bodies with their names, volumes, and bounding boxes to inspect geometry after splits or merges.
List the part's solid bodies: name, volume and bounding box.
A part holds several after merge=False or split_body; combine_bodies joins them again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly (listing) and the effect of merge/split on body counts, which is useful contextual behavior. However it doesn't clarify state/pagination/error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outputs. The second sentence adds operational context without bloat, though it could be slightly tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so the description must describe return values—and it does name the fields returned. However it omits any note about empty parts, errors, or relationships to sibling list tools, leaving some contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. There are no parameters to document, and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (the part's solid bodies) and enumerates returned fields (name, volume, bounding box). Easily distinguished from siblings like list_faces or list_edges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage via a note about when a part holds several bodies (after merge=False or split_body) and the inverse operation combine_bodies. But it doesn't explicitly say when to call this versus alternatives like list_features; usage is inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.