SketchUp MCP untuk Windows

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

verify_dimensions

Measure model dimensions in SketchUp and compare with plan values. Get an accuracy report showing OK or differences in millimeters.

Instructions

Measure the model in SketchUp and compare it with the plan (accuracy report).

checks (metres) can mix three kinds:
  {"label": "Panjang luar", "overall": "x", "expected": 6.0}
      outside size of all walls along x or y; optional "building" and
      "floor" (group names) limit which walls are counted
  {"label": "Kamar tidur 1", "at": [1.5, 4.5], "expected": [2.8, 2.8]}
      clear room size through that point: [along x, along y]
  {"label": "Lebar koridor", "at": [3, 2], "axis": "y", "expected": 1.2}
      one clear distance; axis is "x", "y" or an angle in degrees
"at" is any point inside the room, away from the walls. Clear distances
are measured between wall faces (doors, glass and furniture are ignored;
openings do not fool it). Add "z" (floor level) for upper floors. Leave
"expected" out to just read a dimension.
Every line is OK or SELISIH with the difference in mm. Run this after
build_floor_plan with the key dimensions from the plan, fix what differs,
and pass the report on to the user.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`checks`	Yes
`tolerance`	No

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that clear distances are measured between wall faces, that doors, glass, and furniture are ignored, that openings won't fool it, and that each line returns OK or SELISIH with a mm difference. It omits behavior of the tolerance parameter (default 0.005), which governs pass/fail, leaving a gap for a mutation-adjacent verification tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by structured examples that each carry necessary format information. Slightly long, but almost every line earns its place; no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with a complex nested check format, an output schema present, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it defines inputs, behavior, and the OK/SELISIH result form. The only real omission is the tolerance parameter's role in deciding OK vs SELISIH.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the 'checks' array is free-form with no item schema, so the description must compensate, and it does extensively by documenting three check shapes and their fields (label, overall, expected, at, axis, building, floor, z). The tolerance parameter is never explained, so compensation is strong but incomplete.

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+resource ('Measure the model in SketchUp and compare it with the plan') and frames the output as an accuracy report. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like build_floor_plan and check_dimension_chains by naming the measurement-vs-plan comparison task.

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 explicit sequencing ('Run this after build_floor_plan with the key dimensions from the plan, fix what differs, and pass the report on to the user'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, contrast against the closely related check_dimension_chains sibling, so no exclusion guidance is offered.

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

Deploy Server