Convert a CST project or its geometry to interoperable formats such as STL, STEP, IGES, SAT, OBJ, or NASTRAN by specifying a destination path and format.
Export the current CST project or its geometry to another format such as STL, STEP, IGES, SAT, OBJ, or NASTRAN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Destination file path for the exported file. | |
| format | Yes | Export format. One of: stl, sat, stp, igs, obj, nas. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It mentions exporting but does not specify whether it overwrites existing files, requires an open project, or any other behavioral traits. More detail is needed for a mutation tool.
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?
Single sentence, concise, front-loaded with the main action. Every word is necessary and information-dense.
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?
Adequate for a simple export tool with two required parameters. Mentions that it exports the 'current' project, which is contextual. However, lacks details on file overwrite behavior or path requirements (e.g., extension).
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a list of example formats, but these are already enumerated in the schema enum. No additional semantic value beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states the action 'Export', the resource 'current CST project or its geometry', and lists example formats. This distinguishes it from sibling export tools like cst_export_farfield and cst_export_result.
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?
Implicitly suggests use when exporting geometry or project to the listed formats, but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like cst_export_cad or cst_export_touchstone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.