nx-ai-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_sphere

Create a 3D sphere by diameter, with optional center placement and boolean unite, subtract, or intersect operations against an existing body.

Instructions

Create a sphere. 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": {
      "diameter": "<diameter>"
    },
    "name": "create_sphere"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`center`	No	Centre point. [x, y, z]
`target`	No	Target body for the boolean (body name or feature name). Required when boolean is not 'none' and the part has more than one body.
`boolean`	No	Boolean with an existing body: none = create a new body.	none
`diameter`	Yes	Diameter (mm).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the units. It does not say whether the result is a new body or a feature, how boolean='unite'/'subtract'/'intersect' affects the model, or what permissions or preconditions are required, leaving key mutation semantics to the schema.

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 action, with no redundant wording. The unit note is compact and immediately follows the purpose.

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 four-parameter creation tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition is adequate but thin. It omits what the tool returns and how the boolean/target interaction changes the resulting model, which matters for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents diameter, center, boolean and target. The description adds only the unit convention (millimetres), and 'degrees' is not relevant to any parameter in this schema; 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a sphere.' That clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as create_cylinder, create_cone and create_block. It does not explicitly explain how it differs from boolean or feature tools, but the resource is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as boolean_unite or the other primitive-creation tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the schema.

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