Create a sphere in Rhino at a specified center (x, y, z) and radius.
Create a sphere in Rhino.
Args:
controller: RhinoController instance.
x, y, z: World-space center point.
radius: Sphere radius.
Returns:
Dict with 'status' and 'command' keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| z | No | ||
| radius | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral side effects. It does not mention that the command likely modifies the Rhino document, whether it requires an active document, or any undo/redo implications. No annotations are provided to supplement this.
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?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single short sentence. It contains no unnecessary words and is well-structured for a simple command. It is easy to read and understand.
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?
Given the simplicity of the command, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks contextual details such as the coordinate system, default radius interpretation, or relationship to other shape-creation tools. It is complete enough for a basic understanding but not fully rich.
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?
The description does not explain the parameters (x, y, z, radius). Although the schema lists them with defaults, there is no elaboration on their meaning, units, or coordinate system. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a sphere in Rhino.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and object ('sphere'), making the intended action unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools that create other primitives.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where sphere creation is preferred, nor does it reference related tools like rhino_box or rhino_cylinder. No context is provided for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.