Create a slab from selected curves by specifying thickness. Converts planar curves into extruded surfaces with depth for architectural modeling.
Create a slab (extruded planar surface with thickness) from curves.
Args:
controller: RhinoController instance.
thickness: Slab thickness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thickness | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Create' and mentions a controller. It does not explain whether it operates on currently selected curves, whether source curves are deleted or retained, what side effects occur, or what happens if no curves are selected. The gap between the described controller argument and the schema further reduces transparency.
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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant prose. The short Args section adds some structure, though it introduces a controller parameter that is not present in the schema, which slightly weakens the structure's clarity.
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?
The tool is a geometry-creating operation with at least one implicit dependency (curve selection or input), yet the description fails to explain how curves are supplied. It also omits practical details like units, object placement, and selection behavior. The existence of an output schema reduces the need for return documentation, but the input-side incompleteness remains significant.
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 must compensate. It does define 'thickness' as 'Slab thickness' and mentions a 'controller', but controller is absent from the input schema and the description lacks units, range, or meaning for thickness. Critically, the 'curves' input mentioned in the description is not represented as a parameter, leaving the main source of geometry underspecified.
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 action ('Create a slab') and defines the result ('extruded planar surface with thickness') and source ('from curves'). It is specific enough to convey the core purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like rhino_extrude or rhino_plane_surface.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_extrude, rhino_plane_surface, or rhino_box. It does not mention prerequisites like selected curves, required Rhino document state, or any exclusions, so an agent receives little direction on choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.