Creates a surface from a closed boundary of curves or edges. Provide boundary reference tokens, optional name and geoset, to generate the fill surface.
Fill a closed boundary of curves or edges with a surface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name for the surface. | |
| geoset | No | Target geometrical set. | |
| boundaries | Yes | Reference tokens forming a closed boundary. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description plainly implies a surface-creation operation, which is the crucial behavioral fact. Annotations are unhelpful (all false), so the description carries some burden, but it does not disclose whether an existing element is overwritten, where the new surface is placed, or what happens with an invalid boundary.
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?
A single sentence conveys the core operation with no filler. The essential information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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 relatively simple surface-creation tool, the description covers the core operation and the schema covers parameters. Missing elements include typical failure modes, output/return behavior, and guidance on how boundaries should be selected or combined, but these gaps are not critical given the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds marginal meaning by clarifying that boundaries can be curves or edgesholars, but it does not elaborate on name or geoset semantics beyond the 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 states a specific verb, 'fill', a specific resource, 'closed boundary of curves or edges', and the result, 'a surface'. It is clearly distinguishable from most GSD siblings like extrude or revolve, though it does not explicitly contrast with the nearby catia_gsd_close_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?
The usage context is implied: use this when a closed boundary of curves or edges exists and a filled surface is needed. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives for open boundaries or other surface-creation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.