Gradient Dynamics: thermal and CFD simulation

Import attached reference document

import_design_source_attachment

Import an already attached supplier PDF, requirements TXT, CSV heat map/table or PNG/JPEG using the file reference supplied by the chat host. Prefer this over another file picker when the host supplies the attachment. The API fetches and verifies the bytes, returning a ready artifact for read_design_source; then continue the user's existing request. Never invent a download URL/file ID, use a local path or expose the temporary URL. If the host cannot provide a transferable attachment, use open_design_source_upload once. Images remain visual evidence, not measured dimensions or numeric heat maps. Does not start engineering compute. May return a pending operation_id instead of the finished result. Continue with get_operation at retry_after_seconds intervals; on success use result, then continue the requested workflow. Do not resubmit to check progress.

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>",
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "media_type": "<media_type>",
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "import_design_source_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file`	Yes
`sha256`	No
`filename`	Yes
`media_type`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes
`size_bytes`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description is consistent with those and adds real context beyond them: the API fetches and verifies bytes, the tool does not start engineering compute, an image is evidence not measurement, and a pending operation_id may be returned instead of a result. It does not state authorization requirements or what a failed verification looks like on the response side, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 and the warnings and polling instructions follow in rough priority order. A few clauses repeat the same idea ('then continue the user's existing request' vs 'continue the requested workflow'), and the block is dense, but almost every sentence contributes a constraint or behavior.

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?

For a write-ish import tool with six parameters, an output schema and partial annotations, the definition covers the safety constraints (no invented URLs, no local paths, no URL exposure), the async contract (operation_id, retry_after_seconds, get_operation) and the downstream consumer (read_design_source). Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly appears to be missing, and return-value detail is delegated to the output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is reported at 0%, so the description has to carry more weight; it does explain the semantics of the attachment reference ('file reference supplied by the chat host', 'never invent a download URL/file ID, use a local path') and implicitly brackets media_type via the format list. However, the optional sha256 and size_bytes parameters and their integrity/limit semantics (10 MB cap) are never mentioned, leaving gaps the schema alone must cover.

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 and resource ('Import an already attached supplier PDF, requirements TXT, CSV heat map/table or PNG/JPEG') and enumerates the accepted formats, which map directly onto the media_type enum. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling file pickers by naming when each applies, so an agent can select correctly 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit routing rules are given: prefer this tool when the host supplies the attachment, and fall back to open_design_source_upload 'once' only when no transferable attachment exists. The description also sets follow-on behavior (continue the user's request, poll via get_operation at retry_after_seconds, do not resubmit), which is when-to-use guidance plus the alternative named.

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?