Gradient Dynamics: thermal and CFD simulation

Prepare cold-plate simulation

prepare_cold_plate_simulation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Prepare a CHT request from a brief and actual mesh zones/patches. Assign each CSV heat-map cell exactly once to a solid zone, conserve total power and explicitly accept any zone averaging. Supply verified materials, inlet flow conversion and boundary conditions. Returns a validated request for run_simulation; never launches compute or pretends a spatial field is retained when averaged.

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": {
      "brief_id": "<brief_id>",
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_cold_plate_simulation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`request`	Yes
`brief_id`	Yes
`allow_zone_averaging`	No
`heat_map_cells_by_zone`	No	Assign every zero-based heat-map row exactly once to a verified solid zone

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description corroborates this with 'never launches compute or pretends a spatial field is retained when averaged'. It adds genuine behavioral rules beyond the annotations: one-to-one cell assignment, total-power conservation, and the requirement to explicitly accept zone averaging.

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?

Four dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; the final sentence carries the return value and the no-side-effect guarantee. Phrasing is jargon-heavy ('CHT', 'power conservation') but each clause carries information relevant to correct invocation.

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?

Given a deeply nested schema and an output schema that covers the return shape, the description supplies everything essential: what it produces, that validation happens, that averaging must be opted into, and that nothing is executed. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and the 'brief' prerequisite, but no critical calling information is absent.

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?

Overall schema coverage is 25%, but the description compensates by giving meaning to the two non-obvious top-level inputs: 'assign each CSV heat-map cell exactly once to a solid zone' explains heat_map_cells_by_zone, and 'explicitly accept any zone averaging' explains allow_zone_averaging. It also flags the material, inlet-flow-conversion and boundary-condition content of the nested request.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Prepare a CHT request from a brief and actual mesh zones/patches') and names its downstream consumer, run_simulation, so an agent can tell it apart from execution tools. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from other preparation-stage siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is the step that produces 'a validated request for run_simulation' and 'never launches compute', which conveys pipeline order. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for the planning/candidate stages, so an agent must infer its place in the workflow.

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?