Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cadkit

cadkit

by saltyeg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

cad_export

Export a 3D part studio or a specific part to common file formats like STL, STEP, or GLTF for sharing or manufacturing.

Instructions

Export the part studio to a file format. format: STL/STEP/PARASOLID/GLTF/OBJ (default STEP). Optional partId to export a single part. Returns the translation result.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "documentId": "<documentId>",
      "workspaceId": "<workspaceId>",
      "elementId": "<elementId>"
    },
    "name": "cad_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
documentIdYes
workspaceIdYes
elementIdYes
formatNo
partIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'Returns the translation result' but does not clarify if the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, nor any side effects. Minimal disclosure about behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sets the action, the second provides format and parameter info. Could be better structured (e.g., list format values separately), but efficient overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format of 'translation result', error conditions, or execution model (sync/async). Leaves important gaps for an export tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It explains 'format' (lists allowed values and default) and 'partId' (optional, exports single part), but the three required parameters (documentId, workspaceId, elementId) are not described, leaving ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Export' and the resource 'part studio', and lists supported file formats with a default. It differentiates from siblings as the only export tool, but could be more explicit about what 'export' entails (e.g., triggers a download).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there are no competing export tools in siblings, it is the sole option. However, prerequisites (e.g., need a part studio) are implied but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools