SketchUp MCP untuk Windows

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

build_floor_plan

Convert floor plan coordinates into tagged 3D walls, door/window openings, and a floor slab in SketchUp, with materials and one undo step.

Instructions

Turn a floor plan into 3D walls, doors, windows and a floor slab, already tagged and given materials according to the house rules.

All numbers are METRES. Coordinates are [x, y] on the ground plane.
spec = {
  "building": "Rumah A",         # container group for the whole building
  "name": "Lantai 1",            # name of this floor's group
  "wall_height": 3.0,            # default height
  "wall_thickness": 0.15,        # default thickness
  "base_z": 0,                   # floor level (use 3.2 etc. for upper floors)
  "wall_ref": "center",          # default for "ref" below
  "walls": [                     # from/to line of each wall, see "ref"
    {"id": "W1", "from": [0, 0], "to": [6, 0]},
    {"id": "W2", "from": [6, 0], "to": [6, 4], "thickness": 0.1, "height": 2.8}
  ],
  "openings": [                  # offset = distance from the wall's "from"
    {"wall": "W1", "type": "door",   "offset": 1.0, "width": 0.9, "height": 2.1},
    {"wall": "W2", "type": "window", "offset": 1.2, "width": 1.5, "sill": 0.9, "height": 1.2}
  ],
  "slab": {"outline": [[0, 0], [6, 0], [6, 4], [0, 4]], "thickness": 0.12}
}
An opening with no "sill" (or sill 0) is a door; with a sill it is a window.
Doors get a 4 cm leaf and windows a 1 cm glass pane ("infill": false for
plain holes). Walls and slab accept "material": "Dinding - Bata Ekspos".
"ref" on a wall says what its from/to line is: "center" (centreline,
the default), "left" or "right" (that face of the wall, as seen walking
from `from` to `to`; the wall body lies on the other side). Use the one
the plan is dimensioned to, or the error equals the wall thickness:
- outside dimensions of the building: trace the outline anticlockwise
  with "ref": "right";
- clear (inside) dimensions of a room: trace the room anticlockwise
  with "ref": "left";
- grid/axis dimensions: "center".
Where walls meet, their ends are lengthened or trimmed automatically so
corners close and walls do not overlap ("extend": false, a number, or
[start, end] in metres overrides that for one wall).
The whole plan is one undo step. The reply reports the built size and any
opening that was skipped (for example because it does not fit the wall):
read it, then call verify_dimensions and look at export_scene(format="png").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spec`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it declares units (metres), that the whole plan is one undo step, that corners are auto-lengthened/trimmed, that errors equal wall thickness if 'ref' is misused, and that the reply reports built size and skipped openings. This is the kind of behavioral context an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the dense but necessary spec example. Every block (units, ref rules, corner trimming, undo/reply) earns its place, though the length is substantial and a couple of clauses could be tightened. Appropriate sizing for a complex nested-spec tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a one-parameter nested object with zero schema coverage and rich output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the full spec contract, defaults, geometric conventions, and follow-up verification steps. Return values are not over-explained since an output schema exists.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the single 'spec' parameter is an opaque nested object, yet the description fully compensates with a commented example covering defaults, per-wall overrides, opening rules, sill-based door/window inference, the 'infill' flag, 'material' values, 'ref' semantics, and 'extend' behavior. No ambiguity remains for calling it correctly.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: turns a floor-plan spec into 3D walls, doors, windows and a slab with tags and materials. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_component, transform_component, and set_material, which operate on existing geometry rather than generating a whole floor.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear downstream context ('read the reply, then call verify_dimensions and look at export_scene(format="png")') and prescribes which 'ref' convention to use depending on how the plan is dimensioned. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-input guidance, but the workflow context is genuinely actionable.

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

Deploy Server