Join selected surface edges into a single surface within a specified tolerance.
Stitch selected surface edges together within a tolerance.
Args:
controller: RhinoController instance.
tolerance: Stitching tolerance.
Returns:
Dict with command result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tolerance | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states the operation and tolerance but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it modifies the original surfaces, what happens if edges are outside tolerance, or whether any selection state is required. This is a significant gap for a mutation-style 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 description is brief and front-loaded with the core action. The Args/Returns structure is clear and easy to scan. However, the Args section includes a 'controller' parameter that does not appear in the input schema, which could mislead an agent into thinking it must supply it.
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 geometric operation with no annotations, and the description does not cover selection requirements, edge conditions, tolerance semantics, or outcomes. An output schema exists, so return value shape is less critical, but the missing operational context leaves an agent uncertain about how to invoke this correctly.
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 calls tolerance a 'Stitching tolerance,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name and schema type. It does not explain units, acceptable ranges, or how tolerance affects stitching behavior. The controller parameter mentioned in the description is not present in the input schema, adding confusion.
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 action ('Stitch selected surface edges together') with a clear resource (surface edges) and a tolerance parameter. It is not a tautology and communicates the core purpose effectively. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar surface/edge operations like rhino_merge_surfaces or rhino_blend_surface_edges.
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 implies the tool operates on 'selected surface edges' but gives no guidance on when to use stitching versus alternatives, nor does it explain prerequisites such as needing an active selection. There is no mention of when this tool is preferred or when another tool should be used instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.