Gradient Dynamics: thermal and CFD simulation

Create design brief

create_design_brief

Save an immutable GPU/IGBT design brief with supplier citations, hard/preferred requirements, manufacturing constraints, operating point and optional spatial heat map. Requires artifacts:read/write too. Interpret sources with the client's model, ask about consequential conflicts and record assumptions. No LLM key or compute is used by this server. Revisions use parent_brief_id.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "device": "<device>",
      "requirements": "<requirements>",
      "plate_length_mm": "<plate_length_mm>",
      "plate_width_mm": "<plate_width_mm>",
      "manufacturing": "<manufacturing>"
    },
    "name": "create_design_brief"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes
`device`	Yes
`heat_map`	No
`operating`	No
`objectives`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`assumptions`	No
`requirements`	Yes
`manufacturing`	Yes
`plate_width_mm`	Yes
`parent_brief_id`	No
`plate_length_mm`	Yes
`source_artifact_ids`	No
`unresolved_conflicts`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the write and non-idempotency annotations, it discloses immutability, additional artifacts:read/write scope, client-side source interpretation, conflict escalation, assumption recording, and the absence of server-side LLM-key or compute use. The parent_brief_id revision model further clarifies how changes work without contradicting destructiveHint=false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence front-loads the action, scope, and payload, while each remaining sentence adds distinct permission, workflow, execution, or revision information. It is dense but contains 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 complex creation operation, it covers the principal selection and behavioral facts, and the output schema removes any need to describe return values. It would be more complete with explicit brief-versus-draft/preview routing and additional guidance for the nested citation, objective, and conflict inputs.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partly compensates: it explains the major content groups, conflict and assumption handling, and the purpose of parent_brief_id. It adds little invocation guidance for objectives and metrics, requirement provenance, source_artifact_ids versus per-citation artifact IDs, or unresolved_conflicts, leaving much of the 14-parameter burden to field names and constraints.

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

Purpose4/5

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

“Save an immutable GPU/IGBT design brief” gives a specific action, resource, device scope, and payload overview. Immutability and revision support suggest a persisted brief rather than a transient artifact, but the description does not explicitly differentiate the brief, draft, and preview sibling workflows.

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?

It provides a concrete permission prerequisite, instructions for consequential source conflicts and assumptions, and an explicit revision rule using parent_brief_id. It does not explain when to create a brief instead of using a draft or preview sibling, and provides no when-not guidance.

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

All Gradient Dynamics: thermal and CFD simulation tools Inspect

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

Need Help?