Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CST-MCP

CST-MCP

by woson-L
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

cst_create_cone_tool

Create a cone or truncated cone in a CST Studio Suite 3D component by specifying axis, bottom/top radii, ranges, material, and segments.

Instructions

Create a cone or truncated cone.

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": {
      "component": "<component>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "axis": "<axis>",
      "bottom_radius": "<bottom_radius>",
      "top_radius": "<top_radius>",
      "ranges": "<ranges>"
    },
    "name": "cst_create_cone_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
axisYes
nameYes
titleNo
centerNo
rangesYes
materialNo
segmentsNo
componentYes
top_radiusYes
bottom_radiusYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does 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 only says 'Create' and does not describe permissions, coordinate system, what happens on success/failure, side effects, or whether existing geometry is affected.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a 10-parameter creation tool. Brevity here reflects missing content rather than efficient communication.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a nontrivial geometry-creation operation, the description is contextually inadequate. Although an output schema exists, the agent still lacks the information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no meaning for any of the 10 parameters. Required parameters like axis, bottom_radius, top_radius, ranges, component, and name are completely undocumented in both structured and natural-language form.

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 states a specific verb (Create) and resource (cone or truncated cone). It is clear enough to distinguish from other creation siblings by shape name, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from every sibling tool.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what prerequisites or context are required. The agent must infer that this is the correct tool solely from the shape name.

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