Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

FERS — structural FEM

by com.ferscloud
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Add a load combination

add_load_combination
Read-only

Add ONE factored load combination — a weighted sum of load cases at a given limit state. This is what the solver designs against: unity checks envelope over COMBINATIONS, never over raw load cases, so a load case no combination references is invisible to every check. ALWAYS set limit_state: it is the only field of a combination the solver reads, and leaving it null makes every SLS deflection check return an empty result that reads as a pass. Free.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "factors": "<factors>"
    },
    "name": "add_load_combination"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYese.g. "ULS 6.10 - leading Snow". results.loadcombinations is keyed by this.
checkNoReport metadata only. Defaults to "ALL".
modelNoStringified FERS model JSON
factorsYesLoad case ids to partial factors: {"1": 1.35, "2": 1.5} or [{"load_case_id":1,"factor":1.35}]. Negative factors are legal (uplift / favourable).
model_refNoHandle from stash_model, used INSTEAD of `model`. Avoids sending the whole document on every step; the tool returns the same handle back.
situationNoReport metadata only; the solver never reads it.
limit_stateNoULS | SLS | FLS | ALS (case-sensitive). Strongly recommended — see the tool description.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description describes adding a combination that 'the solver designs against' and that keys results.loadcombinations, with the tool 'returning the same handle back' after a state change – a mutating operation that conflicts with the read-only hint. Despite otherwise rich behavioral context (solver envelope, failing consequences of a null limit_state, cost 'Free'), the tool semantics contradict the annotation.

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?

Three focused sentences, front-loaded with what a combination is before the limit_state warning. The trailing 'Free.' is a minor, slightly cryptic add-on but almost no wasted text overall.

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 7-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the solver's reliance on combinations, the results keying, and the model_ref handle path. It lacks explicit destination/persistence semantics (where the combination lives, whether it survives) which is exactly the gap that leaves the read-only hint unexplained.

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?

The schema already documents all seven parameters, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by adding non-schema insight on limit_state (the ONLY field the solver reads, and the specific failure mode of null) and on why model_ref matters. Negative-factor legality and check/situation being metadata-only are already carried by the schema.

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 – 'Add ONE factored load combination — a weighted sum of load cases at a given limit state' – and captures the domain semantics (factored, weighted sum, limit state) that distinguish it from generate_load_combinations_ec0 and add_load_case. An agent can identify it as the single-combination builder without opening the schema.

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 strong guidance on the critical field: 'ALWAYS set limit_state... leaving it null makes every SLS deflection check return an empty result that reads as a pass' plus the consequence that unreferenced load cases are invisible to checks. It doesn't name the batch alternative generate_load_combinations_ec0 or state when to prefer it, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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

All FERS — structural FEM toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources