Merge selected adjacent edges of a surface to simplify geometry by reducing unnecessary edge divisions. Ideal for cleaning up surface topology in Rhino.
Merge selected adjacent edges of a surface.
Args:
controller: RhinoController instance.
Returns:
Dict with command result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool merges edges, which implies a mutating operation, but it does not mention reversibility, impact on the surface topology, failure modes, or any side effects. This is a meaningful gap for a geometry-modifying tool.
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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the description is short. The Args/Returns boilerplate is slightly generic but not excessive. It earns a high score for brevity, though the controller line is somewhat redundant given the empty schema.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally sufficient: it names the action and target and mentions the return type. However, it lacks usage context, such as whether a selection must already exist, what types of edges qualify, and how failures are reported. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral context is still thin.
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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline is 4. The description mentions a 'controller: RhinoController instance' in Args, but this is not represented in the schema, so it adds little practical semantic value beyond the baseline.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Merge selected adjacent edges of a surface.' This clearly identifies an edge-level merge operation, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhino_merge_surfaces or rhino_merge_all_coplanar_faces. The phrase 'selected adjacent edges' also conveys the object scope and selection requirement.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies the user must select adjacent edges, but it never explicitly says how selection is handled or what happens when the condition is not met.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.