Skip to main content
Glama
rokibul-mist

rhino-mcp

by rokibul-mist
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

rhino_cmd_box

Create a rectangular box in Rhino by specifying the bottom-left-front corner coordinates, length, width, and height.

Instructions

    Create a box (rectangular cuboid) in Rhino.
    
    The box is defined by its bottom-left-front corner (x, y, z) and its
    opposite corner derived from length/width, then extruded to *height*.
    
    Args:
    controller: RhinoController instance.
    x, y, z:   World-space origin of the box base corner.
    length:     Size along the X axis.
    width:      Size along the Y axis.
    height:     Extrusion height along the Z axis.
    
    Returns:
    Dict with 'status' and 'command' keys.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
zNo
widthNo
heightNo
lengthNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that a box is created and clarifies geometric behavior, and it mentions the return keys. It does not describe side effects such as whether the object is added to the current document or whether existing geometry is affected.

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?

The description is compact, logically organized with Args and Returns sections, and every sentence contributes. It avoids repetition and front-loads the core action.

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 simple creation tool with six all-default integer parameters, the description provides enough parameter semantics and return shape. It is slightly incomplete in not distinguishing this cmd variant from rhino_box or mentioning any document-level effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It fully explains x, y, z as the base corner and maps length to X, width to Y, and height to Z, which adds significant value beyond the bare schema names.

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 box (rectangular cuboid) in Rhino.' The geometric details make the purpose unmistakable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from nearby siblings like rhino_box, rhino_subd_box, or rhino_mesh_box.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the many other box-related tools in the sibling list. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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

Install Server

Other Tools