Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nx-ai-bridge

nx-ai-bridge

by qiuyekai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

export_stl

Exports solid bodies from the NX work part to a binary STL file, with optional body selection and facet tolerance control.

Instructions

Export solid bodies of the work part as a binary STL file.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "export_stl"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute output path ending in .stl.
bodiesNoBodies to export; default all solid bodies.
toleranceNoFacet (chordal) tolerance in mm.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the directory must exist, what units the model is in, or what the call returns on success or failure; only "binary STL" adds anything beyond 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, scope, and format all arrive in the first clause. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 three-parameter export tool with full schema coverage, the definition is enough to make the call, but with no annotations and no output schema the agent still lacks information about overwrite behavior and the return value. Completeness is adequate rather than strong.

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 path, bodies, and tolerance are already documented with defaults and constraints. The description adds only the phrase "solid bodies," which the `bodies` parameter already covers, so baseline 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Export solid bodies") plus the exact output format (binary STL) and the scope (work part), which separates it from sibling export_step. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with that sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named even though export_step sits right beside it in the catalog. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the mesh/STL path rather than the CAD-format path.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools