3D New Era AI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Fit walls to the roof

fit_roof

Destructive

Fit walls, glass, and panels to a roof: create sloping tops, ridge splits, and triangular or trapezoid pieces that update when the roof changes.

Instructions

Fit walls, glass and panels to the roof above them: under an A-frame or shed roof a wall gets a sloping top and is split at the ridge, a panel becomes a triangle or trapezoid (a glass gable with no math); a joinery slatted panel gets its slats cut to the roof line. They keep following the roof when it changes, in the same undo step; off stops that. Reply ok with the count.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	Yes	Walls and pieces (glass, panels) to fit
`off`	No	Stop following the roof (heights stay as they are)
`above`	No	Lowest sloping surface that counts, cm above the floor (default 5)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`v`	No
`ok`	Yes
`ids`	No
`rev`	No
`text`	Yes
`fitted`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv3.0.0Sep 30, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / off / default
```
Removed value: -false
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / fitted / description
```
Removed value: -"Panels fitted under the roof"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / ids / description
```
Removed value: -"Ids created or touched"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / ok / description
```
Removed value: -"Always true"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / rev / description
```
Removed value: -"Plan revision"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / text / description
```
Removed value: -"The reply as written"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / v / description
```
Removed value: -"Plan version written to, when there are several"
```
First observedv0.1.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-read-only, so the modification profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond annotations: the pieces keep following the roof when it changes, and the change lands in the same undo step, with 'off' reversing the persistence. It stops short of spelling out permission or auth requirements, but the behavioral traits it does add are valuable.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its outcomes, then the persistence and undo behavior. It is dense but every clause earns its place by describing a distinct effect; the parentheticals make it slightly run-on but not wasteful.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still notes 'Reply ok with the count'. It covers the geometry outcomes, the persistent-following behavior, the undo grouping, and the disable flag, leaving only minor gaps like explicit auth/permission needs.

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 100%, so all three parameters (ids, off, above) are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The prose clarifies the 'off' flag in behavioral terms ('stops that', heights stay), but adds nothing about 'ids' or the 'above' threshold beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb (Fit) and resource (walls, glass, panels) plus the concrete outcomes: a wall gets a sloping top and is split at the ridge, a panel becomes a triangle or trapezoid, slats get cut to the roof line. This is far more than a restatement of the name and lets an agent predict the geometric result without opening a schema.

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 clearly signals when to use it (walls/pieces sitting under an A-frame or shed roof) and the inverse condition via 'off stops that'. It does not name an alternative sibling tool, but no obvious competing fit operation exists among the siblings, so the guidance is adequate though not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.