Check if a CAD part fits the print bed by rendering a throwaway STL and reporting bounding box, volume, and triangle count.
Render to a throwaway STL and report bounding box, size, volume and triangle count. Use it to check a part fits the print bed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| defines | No | ||
| timeout_s | 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 load. It does add genuinely useful behavior: the STL is 'throwaway', implying a temporary artifact rather than a persisted file. But it says nothing about runtime cost, permission requirements, or what happens if the render fails or times out, even though a timeout_s parameter exists.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the mechanism and followed by the use case. Every word earns its place with no filler.
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 returned metrics need not be explained (the description restates them anyway). With zero annotation coverage and four completely undocumented parameters, however, an agent cannot reliably know how to supply a model source or a timeout.
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% for four parameters (file, source, defines, timeout_s), and the description names none of them. The critical file-vs-source distinction and what 'defines' means are left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to 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?
States a specific action (render to a throwaway STL) and names exactly what it reports: bounding box, size, volume, triangle count. That is enough to separate it from siblings like render/preview, though it never explicitly says how it differs from 'check' or 'render', which sound adjacent.
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?
Gives one clear use case ('check a part fits the print bed') but no when-not-to-use and no routing against the obvious alternatives (render, preview, check). An agent must guess whether this replaces or complements a normal render.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.