Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
simple-3d-modeling-mcp

simple-3d-modeling-mcp

by mazzanfar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

export

Convert OpenSCAD code into 3D file formats (STL, 3MF, AMF, etc.) and return the file path.

Instructions

Export OpenSCAD code to a 3D file (STL, 3MF, AMF, etc.). Returns the file path.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "export"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesOpenSCAD source code
formatNoOutput format: stl, 3mf, amf, off, dxf, svgstl
paramsNo
filenameNoOutput filename

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.12

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the output behavior ('Returns the file path') and lists formats, but it does not disclose whether files are overwritten, where they are written, or any error/validation behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no redundant phrasing, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. It earns its place without excess detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with four parameters including a nested object and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It covers the return value and basic file types, but omits the purpose of 'params', filename behavior, and any side effects or prerequisites.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, so the schema documents most parameters, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Notably, the 'params' object has no schema description and is not mentioned at all, leaving a gap for a key nested parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('OpenSCAD code to a 3D file'), and lists common formats. It clearly identifies the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like render or validate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as render or validate. It does not mention when export is preferable or what conditions might require a different tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools