Inspect the low-level operation payload for a section-by-surface cut before execution, clarifying target, surface reference, offset, and keep-side parameters to catch errors early.
Preview a low-level section-by-surface operation payload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | ||
| keep_side | No | positive | |
| target_ref | Yes | ||
| normal_direction | No | axis_positive | |
| offset_expression | No | ||
| surface_reference | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Preview' implies a non-mutating inspection, but the description does not disclose the return shape, whether inputs are validated, or what the agent should do with the resulting payload. With no output schema, this leaves behavior opaque.
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?
The description is one concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. But for a six-parameter tool with no annotations, this is under-specification rather than appropriate concision; additional details would clearly earn their place.
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?
This is a six-parameter operation with two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description omits operation semantics, input formats, valid values, and expected output, making the tool not safely or reliably invocable by an agent.
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 description coverage is 0%, and all six parameters (target_ref, surface_reference, keep_side, normal_direction, offset_expression, role) are undocumented. The description provides no meaning for any parameter, so an agent must guess what values are valid and how they relate to the operation.
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?
The description names a clear action ('Preview') and a specific resource ('low-level section-by-surface operation payload'), which distinguishes it from the many preview_* siblings. However, it never defines what 'section-by-surface' means or what the payload looks like, so it is clear at a surface level but not fully self-contained.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as preview_changeset, preview_specification_generation, or other preview_* tools. The word 'low-level' hints at positioning, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.