Skip to main content
Glama
pzfreo

build123d-mcp

locate_gate_defects

Read-only

Pinpoints exact 3D locations of CAD validity defects (e.g., non-manifold edges, invalid faces) when validation fails, so you can fix the precise edge or face instead of guessing.

Instructions

Report WHERE a solid fails the validity gate, with 3D coordinates — so you can fix the exact edge/face instead of guessing. validate()/export() tell you WHAT is wrong (e.g. "1 non-manifold edge", "BRepCheck failed") but not where; call this when validate() FAILs to get a per-defect list: brep_invalid_face (face index + center + BRepCheck status, e.g. an unorientable BSpline), open_edge / nonmanifold_edge (B-rep edge midpoint + faces_incident), the mesh self-touches a CAD scorer rejects — mesh_nonmanifold_edge (edge midpoint) and mesh_nonmanifold_vertex (corner-to-corner touch point), mesh_untriangulated_face (a face that cannot tessellate at the base tolerance), mesh_refined_untriangulated_face (a face that only fails at a finer tolerance) — and mesh_vertex_deflection_defect (a tessellated edge endpoint that misses its own BREP vertex by more than the mesh deflection — a patched/healed face whose boundary is topologically closed but geometrically off-vertex; BRepCheck and even the open-edge count can both read clean, but a CAD scorer's own mesh sanity check still rejects it). Each defect includes a generic repair hint plus diagnostic_class / repair_family / next_step metadata; the top-level diagnosis block counts defect kinds and recommends the next verification path. An empty list means the part passes the structural checks. Bounded out-of-process (it mesh-checks), so a huge part returns a clean budget error rather than hanging. object_name: named object from show() (default: current shape).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
object_nameNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses the tool's full behavior: it returns per-defect coordinates, includes repair hints and a diagnosis block, returns an empty list when the part passes, and is bounded out-of-process with a budget error for huge parts. This goes far beyond the annotation's minimal read-only flag.

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?

The description is dense and information-rich, front-loaded with purpose, but it is a single long paragraph rather than structured bullets. Every sentence contributes, but readability would benefit from partitioning; still, it earns a high score for substance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the output schema, and the read-only annotation, the description fully covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and edge cases (budget errors), leaving no significant gap. It even explains return semantics despite the output schema.

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 only parameter, object_name, is explained in the description as 'named object from show() (default: current shape),' adding semantic context beyond the schema's bare string type and default. This compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Report WHERE a solid fails the validity gate, with 3D coordinates' — a specific verb and resource, and explicitly contrasts with validate()/export() which tell WHAT but not WHERE, distinguishing it from sibling tools. It also enumerates concrete defect types, making the purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says 'call this when validate() FAILs to get a per-defect list,' giving a clear trigger condition, and contrasts with validate()/export() as alternatives. It also warns about budget errors for huge parts, which further guides when to use it.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/pzfreo/build123d-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server