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

nx-ai-bridge

by qiuyekai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

list_edges

Retrieve a body's edges with IDs, types, lengths, endpoints, and midpoints to inspect NX geometry; omit the body name when the part has one body.

Instructions

List the edges of a body with id, type, length, end points and mid point. Ids are valid until the body changes.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_edges"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoBody or feature name. Optional when the part has exactly one body.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add real value: it names the returned attributes and warns that ids are only valid until the body changes, which is critical for any follow-up call keyed on an edge id. It does not state read-only safety explicitly or describe ordering, but 'List' plus the id-lifetime caveat covers the main behavioral risk.

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 return shape, followed by the one caveat an agent must know. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back and the id-lifetime constraint. It could say more about body resolution or failure when multiple bodies exist, but it is close to complete for this complexity.

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% and the schema itself explains that body is optional when the part has exactly one body. The description mentions 'body' but adds no resolution rules, format, or behavior for ambiguous or missing body names, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list the edges of a body) and enumerates the returned fields (id, type, length, end points, mid point), which separates it from siblings like list_faces and list_expressions. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so a 4 rather than 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of list_faces or get_model_info, nor any stated preconditions such as needing an open part or a resolved body. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'.

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