Skip to main content
Glama
pzfreo

build123d-mcp

locate_gate_defects

Read-only

Find 3D coordinates of geometry defects like non-manifold edges or invalid faces, enabling precise fixes where validity checks fail.

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_refined_untriangulated_face (a face that only fails to tessellate 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds significant behavioral context: it is bounded out-of-process (budget error for huge parts), it mesh-checks, and it returns detailed metadata per defect. No contradiction.

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 thorough but somewhat verbose. However, it front-loads purpose and structure: first sentence gives core purpose, then contrasts with siblings, then lists defects, then describes output and edge cases. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately efficient for its complexity.

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 output schema exists (context says 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to detail return values, but it still mentions the top-level diagnosis block and per-defect metadata. It covers edge cases (empty list, budget error) and parameter explanation, making it complete for an AI agent.

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 has no schema description (coverage 0%), but the description adds: 'object_name: named object from show() (default: current shape).' This compensates fully by explaining the parameter's source and default behavior.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report WHERE a solid fails the validity gate, with 3D coordinates' and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools validate()/export() which tell 'WHAT' rather than 'where'. It also enumerates specific defect types, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'call this when validate() FAILs', and when not: contrasts with validate()/export(). Also clarifies that an empty list means the part passes structural checks, and that huge parts return a budget error instead of hanging.

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