Export a CAD design as OpenSCAD, STEP contract metadata, or manufacturing brief.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| design_id | Yes | ||
| payment_ref | No | ||
| export_format | No | openscad |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / payment_refAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Payment Ref"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must disclose side effects. It only says 'Export' which is ambiguous—could be read-only or create files. No mention of auth, rate limits, or irreversible actions.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. Efficient but could be slightly more structured to list parameters or usage.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain what each format does, when payment_ref is needed, or what the output contains.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any parameters. The export_format default is 'openscad' but the description lists three formats without mapping to parameter values. payment_ref is not mentioned at all.
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?
Description clearly states the tool exports a CAD design and lists three export formats (OpenSCAD, STEP contract metadata, manufacturing brief). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_cad_design or manufacturing_plan_from_spec, which may also produce similar outputs.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't specify that the design must exist or that payment_ref is needed for certain formats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from workspace management to design generation and manufacturing planning, with no overlapping functionality.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_cad_workspace, generate_cad_design), but 'describe' and 'health' are one-word names, and 'manufacturing_plan_from_spec' uses a different structure, leading to minor inconsistency.
With 6 tools covering workspace creation, design generation, export, and manufacturing planning, the count is well-scoped and appropriate for the server's purpose.
The tool set covers core workflows (create, generate, export, plan) and status checks, but lacks update/delete operations for CAD designs, which may limit iterative editing.