Compile an OpenSCAD script without evaluating geometry to validate syntax and references; returns errors, warnings, and ECHO output.
Compile a script without evaluating geometry. Fast syntax and reference check. Returns errors, warnings and any ECHO output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| defines | No | ||
| hard_warnings | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the key behavioral trait — geometry is not evaluated, so the check is fast and side-effect-free — and states what comes back (errors, warnings, ECHO). It does not address what happens when both file and source are supplied, permission/path requirements for file, or whether anything is cached or written.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Compile a script without evaluating geometry') followed by speed/scope and return contents. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so the summary of returned errors/warnings/ECHO is a bonus rather than a necessity. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves the agent unable to decide between file and source or to understand defines/hard_warnings — the substantive gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across all four parameters, and the description adds nothing about file vs. source (the obvious mutual-exclusion question), what defines does, or what hard_warnings changes. The only hint is 'ECHO output,' which relates to nothing in the schema. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a concrete verb and resource ('compile a script without evaluating geometry') and clarifies the mode of operation ('syntax and reference check'), which implicitly separates it from render/preview siblings. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Fast syntax and reference check' hints at a pre-render validation use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g. 'use render to actually evaluate geometry'). Usage is implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.