Gradient Dynamics: thermal and CFD simulation

Get CAD reconstruction

get_cad_reconstruction

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the owned CAD reconstruction, editable parameter inventory with verified source-component dependencies and input_groups for dimensions and advanced detail controls, coverage/fidelity, immutable revision SHA and document/preview/STEP artifact identities. Set reconstruction_id to reconstruction_artifact_id from the completed operation, not its display surface artifact_id. Use reconstruction_sha256 for edits. Face recognition alone does not qualify arbitrary feature edits. The full measured source-face inventory is retained in its report artifact; use artifact downloads only when the user requests an export.

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": {
      "reconstruction_id": "<reconstruction_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_cad_reconstruction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reconstruction_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds real context on top: ownership scoping ("owned"), revision SHA immutability, the fact that the full measured source-face inventory lives in a separate report artifact, and the caveat that face recognition alone does not qualify arbitrary feature edits. Those are behavioral facts an agent cannot derive from the structured fields.

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 and every sentence carries non-redundant information. The first sentence is a long comma-chained inventory that is harder to parse than it needs to be, but trimming it would lose the field-level detail that makes the tool legible.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still orients the agent to the shape of the payload (inventory, dependencies, coverage, artifact identities). It also covers ownership, identifier provenance, and the export-vs-report boundary — nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% — reconstruction_id is documented only as a bare uuid — so the description must carry the meaning, and it does: it names the exact upstream field (reconstruction_artifact_id from the completed operation) and explicitly rules out the display surface artifact_id. It also clarifies which identifier (reconstruction_sha256) is the edit handle, preventing a plausible mix-up.

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?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource (retrieve the owned CAD reconstruction) and enumerates exactly what comes back: editable parameter inventory, verified source-component dependencies, input_groups, coverage/fidelity, revision SHA, and artifact identities. That level of specificity makes it distinguishable from reconstruct_cad (creation) and edit_reconstructed_cad (mutation) without opening either 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?

It gives concrete selection rules: pull reconstruction_id from the completed operation's reconstruction_artifact_id rather than the display surface artifact_id, and reserve artifact downloads for explicit export requests. The alternative is described functionally ("artifact downloads") rather than by sibling name, and it doesn't explicitly point at edit_reconstructed_cad for edits — it only says which SHA to carry into them.

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?