Extrude a profile curve along a specified direction and distance to create a 3D surface or solid. Optionally cap the ends and assign a layer for the result.
Linearly extrude a profile curve by distance along direction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=false annotation already signals mutation, and the description adds a concrete behavioral statement: linear extrusion of a profile curve driven by distance and direction. However, it does not mention the document-level effect (e.g., a new extrusion object), capping behavior for closed profiles, or any constraints on the profile curve.
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 a single sentence with no filler words. The core operation and primary parameters are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
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 return-value details are not the description's responsibility. However, for a document-mutating CAD tool, the description is thin: it does not clarify the type of result produced, how capping behaves, or whether the profile must be open or closed. It is minimally viable but leaves meaningful gaps.
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%, so the description carries the semantic burden. It helpfully connects profile_id, distance, and direction in one coherent sentence. It does not explain the optional name/layer/capped parameters or the exact vector format for direction, though the nested schema provides examples.
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 ('extrude'), a resource ('profile curve'), and the linear mechanism with distance and direction. It is immediately understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like rhino_extrude_curve or related surface-generation tools such as rhino_sweep1, rhino_loft, or rhino_revolve.
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?
There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The sibling list includes rhino_extrude_curve, rhino_extrude_surface, and numerous surface creation tools, and the description gives no selection criteria, exclusions, or context about prerequisites. The only hint is the word 'linearly,' which is not enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.