nx-ai-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

boolean_unite

Combine tool bodies into a target body with boolean unite, consuming the source tools to produce a single merged solid for NX modeling.

Instructions

Unite (add) tool bodies to the target body. The tools are consumed.

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": {
      "target": "<target>",
      "tools": "<tools>"
    },
    "name": "boolean_unite"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tools`	Yes	Tool bodies.
`target`	Yes	Target body.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: 'The tools are consumed,' signaling a destructive merge where input bodies do not survive. It stops short of covering prerequisites (solids vs. surfaces, whether bodies must overlap), failure behavior, or the safety/reversibility profile of a mutation operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the key consequence. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the operation does and its consumption side effect. It omits preconditions and error behavior, which an agent would need to invoke this reliably on arbitrary bodies.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the terse schema labels ('Tool bodies.', 'Target body.') are modestly enriched by the description's framing of target as the surviving body and tools as inputs that get consumed. No format, count, or identity details are added beyond that.

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 gives a specific verb ('Unite (add)') plus the resource ('tool bodies') and names the destination ('target body'), which is enough to distinguish it from boolean_intersect and boolean_subtract siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, which keeps it below a 5.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the merge/union operation from the verb 'Unite (add)', but there is no statement about when to choose it over boolean_intersect or boolean_subtract, nor any precondition guidance. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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