Extrude a closed planar curve into a solid for CST 3D models. Specify component, curve, thickness, and optional taper, twist, or material to generate geometry.
Extrude a closed planar curve item into a solid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| curve | Yes | ||
| taper | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| twist | No | ||
| material | No | ||
| component | Yes | ||
| thickness | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a solid is created and that the input curve must be closed and planar, which is useful, but it does not describe side effects, required component context, failure conditions, or what happens to the existing model.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently structured, although for an 8-parameter modeling operation it is arguably terse rather than fully sized.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage across 8 parameters, the description is far too thin to make the tool reliably callable without additional inference.
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?
There are 8 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only constrains the curve argument as closed and planar and never explains component, name, thickness, taper, twist, material, or title, leaving most parameters undocumented.
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 has a specific verb (Extrude), resource (closed planar curve item), and result (solid). It clearly distinguishes this from generic modeling tools such as create_brick or boolean, though it does not explicitly name when to use it over those siblings.
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 states what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent would have to infer that this is the correct tool for extruding a closed planar curve rather than another solid-creation or transform tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.