3D New Era AI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Build joinery

joinery

Destructive

Build and edit parametric cabinets, slats, countertops, coves, shadow gaps, and sofas; computes boards, clearances, and hardware, and validates fit.

Instructions

Parametric joinery and interiors: the server computes every board, clearance and rule and answers {id,name,size,parts,hardware,notes}. Workshop advice (a board nobody stocks, a sagging shelf, a short drawer front) comes back in notes and the piece is built anyway; only what has no geometry fails, saying why. kind + p: cabinet {w,h,d cm; t 15|18|25 mm; back mm; door hinged|sliding|drawers|none; doors; shelves; drawers; dividers; plinth; cooktop; top_cutout [x,y,w,d] cm from the left-back; color; front finish} · slats {w,h cm; slat, thickness, gap mm; orientation vertical|horizontal; backing; finish} · countertop {length,depth,height,thickness cm; material; support none|legs|brackets; cutouts [{kind sink|cooktop|grommet, x, w?, d?}]} · cove {room or pts; type open|closed|inverted; ceiling, width, drop, slot cm; led} · shadow_gap {room or pts; ceiling, gap, depth cm; led} · sofa {length,depth,seat,back cm; arms straight|rounded|none; modules; color}. Place with at|wall(+along), angle, elev. Change a build with id + p holding only the new values; a new size keeps its back (anchor back|front|left|right|bottom|top|+x|-x|+y|-y|center). dry=true validates only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`p`	No	Parameters (flat; everything has a default), see the tool description
`at`	No	Center on the plan (default: 0,0), or `wall` (+`along` cm) to back it onto a wall
`id`	No	Or an existing build's group id: `p` holds only what changes
`dry`	No	Only check and report, create nothing
`elev`	No	Bottom above the floor, cm (wall cabinets)
`kind`	No	What a new build is
`room`	No	`cove`/`shadow_gap`: room id whose outline to follow
`wall`	No	Wall to back it onto, instead of `at`
`along`	No	With `wall`: center along it, cm from its start (default: the middle)
`angle`	No	Clockwise degrees
`anchor`	No	Changing a build's size: the face that stays where it is — `back` (default: joinery stands against a wall), `front`, `left`, `right`, `bottom`, `top` or a plan side `+x` `-x` `+y` `-y`; `center` grows around the middle

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`size`	Yes
`notes`	Yes
`parts`	Yes
`hardware`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedv3.0.0Sep 30, 2026

changedInput schema / $defs / Point2 / description

Previous value: -"[x, y] in centimeters; x grows right, y grows down"New value: +"[x, y] cm"

removedInput schema / properties / dry / default
```
Removed value: -false
```

changedInput schema / properties / kind / description

Previous value: -"New build: `cabinet`, `slats`, `countertop`, `cove`, `shadow_gap` or `sofa`"New value: +"What a new build is"

addedInput schema / properties / kind / enum

Added value: +[
+  "cabinet",
+  "slats",
+  "countertop",
+  "cove",
+  "shadow_gap",
+  "sofa"
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / hardware / description
```
Removed value: -"Hardware it needs"
```

removedOutput schema / properties / id / description

Removed value: -"The build's group id (empty when dry)"

removedOutput schema / properties / name / description
```
Removed value: -"Its name"
```

removedOutput schema / properties / notes / description

Removed value: -"What a workshop would say about it"

removedOutput schema / properties / parts / description
```
Removed value: -"Parts it is made of"
```
removedOutput schema / properties / size / description
```
Removed value: -"[w, d, h] cm"
```

First observedv0.1.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false already declared, the description adds real behavior the annotations can't convey: non-fatal workshop advice arrives in notes and the piece is still built, and only geometry-less requests actually fail. It stops short of saying whether an id-based edit replaces or deletes an existing build, which is the destructive behavior the annotation warns about.

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 purpose and failure semantics before the dense spec dump, and nearly every clause carries load given the free-form `p` object. The middle section is a wall of semicolon-separated key lists that would scan better as per-kind structure, but little text is genuinely wasteful.

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?

For a no-required-parameter, nested-object tool with an output schema already present (so return values need no explanation), it covers all six kinds, placement, size-change anchoring including the default, and dry-run validation. The only unaddressed question is its relationship to sibling edit tools, which is minor given how well the creation path is specified.

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?

The top-level schema is well documented, but the critical `p` object is additionalProperties:true with no declared keys, so the description is the only source of its contents. It exhaustively enumerates per-kind parameters with units and allowed values (t 15|18|25 mm, door hinged|sliding|drawers|none, slat/gap mm, cutouts, finish), which is exactly the compensation this opaque parameter requires.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Parametric joinery and interiors') and immediately names the six build kinds (cabinet, slats, countertop, cove, shadow_gap, sofa), so an agent can tell this generator apart from sibling placement tools like place, move, cabinet_run or update. The stated return payload {id,name,size,parts,hardware,notes} further pins down what the tool produces.

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 states the three operating modes and their triggers: create via kind+p, modify via id + partial p, and validate-only via dry=true, plus where to place the piece (at / wall+along / angle / elev). It does not, however, route the agent against siblings (e.g., when to reuse move/update/place instead), so the alternatives clause is absent.

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