split_bodySplit a solid body into two parts using a plane or face as the cutting tool. Extend the tool to cut through the entire body when needed.
Split a body using a plane or face
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body_name | Yes | ||
| extend_tool | No | Extend tool to cut through entire body | |
| splitting_body | No | Name of a body/surface to use as splitting tool (overrides plane) | |
| splitting_plane | No | Plane to split with (or use splitting_body) | xy |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint: false), non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it splits a body, implying geometric modification, but doesn't elaborate on behavioral traits like whether it creates new bodies, modifies the original, or has side effects. No contradiction with annotations, but minimal value beyond them.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies the splitting methods. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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?
For a geometric operation with 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering basic traits, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on usage context, output (e.g., what happens to split bodies), or error conditions. Completeness is borderline given the tool's complexity.
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 75%, with clear descriptions for parameters like 'splitting_plane' and 'extend_tool'. The description mentions 'plane or face', hinting at 'splitting_body' usage, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.
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 clearly states the action ('Split') and the target ('a body'), and specifies the splitting methods ('using a plane or face'). It distinguishes from sibling 'split_face' by targeting bodies rather than faces. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other geometric operations like 'boolean_operation' or 'trim_surface' that might also divide geometry.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing body), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'split_face' (for faces) or 'boolean_operation' (for other cuts). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.