nakomis-dragonfruit-mcp

by nakomis

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

find_islands

Locate regions in an STL layer that have nothing solid beneath them, identifying where a resin print needs supports.

Instructions

Find islands: regions that appear in a layer with nothing solid beneath them.

These are where a resin print needs supports. The model is scanned as it sits in the STL: layer 0 is its lowest point, as if lying on the plate, and no supports are considered. Positions are in the STL's own X/Y/Z (mm). Layers are sliced layer_height apart on a px_mm grid; a region counts as supported if solid lies within support_buffer_mm of it in the layer below. Detections that start within cluster_mm (XY distance from the cluster's first detection) and ten layers of each other are merged into one entry; 0 disables that. Entries whose first_area_mm2 is under min_area_mm2 are then dropped, and the max_islands largest by that area are returned, with truncated set if there were more.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`px_mm`	No
`stl_path`	Yes
`cluster_mm`	No
`max_islands`	No
`layer_height`	No
`min_area_mm2`	No
`support_buffer_mm`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes
`px_mm`	Yes
`layers`	Yes
`islands`	Yes	Largest first_area_mm2 first
`bbox_max`	Yes
`bbox_min`	Yes	[x, y, z] mm of the model, to check positions against
`warnings`	No
`elapsed_s`	Yes
`truncated`	Yes	True when islands holds fewer than islands_total
`islands_total`	Yes	Islands found after clustering and filtering
`plate_contacts`	Yes	Layer-0 regions: on the plate, not islands
`raw_detections`	Yes	Off-plate islands the tracker reported, before clustering and filtering
`total_area_mm2`	Yes	Unsupported footprint: first-layer areas of all islands_total islands (every merged detection), not just the ones listed
`layer_height_mm`	Yes
`support_buffer_mm`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it explains that the model is scanned as it sits in the STL with layer 0 at the plate and no supports considered, that positions are in the STL's own mm frame, and that results may be merged, area-filtered and truncated. It omits operational traits like compute cost or whether the call is purely read-only, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose and caveats are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and every clause carries information. The final paragraph is a single very long sentence packing clustering, filtering and truncation together, which could have been broken up, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still flags the important ones (area-based ordering, max_islands cap, truncated flag). Combined with full parameter explanation and the algorithmic model, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains essentially every parameter: px_mm (grid), layer_height (slice spacing), support_buffer_mm (support proximity test), cluster_mm (XY merge distance, with '0 disables'), min_area_mm2 (drop threshold) and max_islands (largest-N selection plus the truncated flag). This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Find islands') and immediately defines the term operationally: 'regions that appear in a layer with nothing solid beneath them.' It also grounds the output in a concrete use case (resin print supports), which clearly separates it from the informational siblings engine_info and mesh_info.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'These are where a resin print needs supports' hints at why you'd call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisite for preparing the STL, and no mention of alternatives. Adequate context, no routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server