nx-ai-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_hole

Drill a simple round hole into a body using a precise subtracted cylinder; define the entry-face centre, diameter, direction, and optional depth or through-hole setting.

Instructions

Drill a simple round hole into a body. position is the centre of the hole on the entry face; the hole goes along direction (pointing INTO the material). Implemented as a subtracted cylinder so the geometry is exact. Units: millimetres (mm) and degrees.

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": {
      "position": "<position>",
      "diameter": "<diameter>"
    },
    "name": "create_hole"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Body to drill (body or feature name). Optional when the part has exactly one body.
`depth`	No	Hole depth (mm). Omit or use through=true for a through hole.
`through`	No	Through hole (depth is computed from the body size).
`diameter`	Yes	Hole diameter (mm).
`position`	Yes	Centre of the hole at the entry face. [x, y, z]
`direction`	No	Drilling direction, into the material. [x, y, z]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that material is removed (mutating operation), that geometry is exact via cylinder subtraction, and that units are mm/degrees, but it says nothing about what happens on failure (e.g. hole off the body), whether a feature is added to the model tree and can be removed with delete_feature, or what the call returns.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the two ambiguous parameters, then the implementation note and units. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess at; nothing is padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool with fully described parameters, the description covers the operation, the two geometrically ambiguous inputs, implementation, and units. Gaps remain around return value and feature-tree effects, but the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 schema already documents all six parameters and even states mm units and 'into the material'. The description largely restates position/direction semantics, though it usefully reinforces the entry-face centre and the INTO-material polarity, which is an easy axis-sign error. Net value over the schema is modest, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Drill a simple round hole into a body', and narrows scope with 'simple round hole'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from create_cylinder + boolean_subtract by noting it is 'Implemented as a subtracted cylinder', but never names or explicitly contrasts a sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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: it is clear this is for drilling a hole in a body, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over boolean_subtract/create_cylinder, nor any preconditions such as the body needing to exist or the hole needing to intersect the material. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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