Gradient Dynamics: thermal and CFD simulation

Prepare surface heatmap

prepare_surface_heatmap

Read-onlyIdempotent

Prepare a spatial CHT heatmap from CSV x_mm,y_mm,width_mm,height_mm,power_W and a verified mesh zone. Coordinates are lower-left in-plane millimeters; power is total watts per rectangle, never W/m². Specify receiving solid, plane axis/position and tolerance. Returns thermal.surface_heat_sources in meters, preserving the distribution for Fluxcore; no zone averaging or compute. The solver still checks full exterior-face coverage. Remove replaced sources to avoid double heating; do not infer numeric loads from image colors.

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": {
      "mesh_artifact_id": "<mesh_artifact_id>",
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "csv_text": "<csv_text>",
      "zone": "<zone>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_surface_heatmap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`axis`	No	z
`zone`	Yes
`csv_text`	Yes
`filename`	Yes
`position_mm`	No
`mesh_artifact_id`	Yes
`plane_tolerance_mm`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: the return key is thermal.surface_heat_sources in meters, the original distribution is preserved with no zone averaging or compute, and the solver still validates full exterior-face coverage. It also flags the double-heating risk when old sources are not removed.

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?

The description is front-loaded and dense with relevant constraints, with no obvious filler. It is slightly jargon-heavy and packs several distinct concepts into one paragraph, which reduces readability but not correctness.

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 preparation tool with an output schema, it covers the essential input semantics, output meaning, downstream solver behavior, and a key operational caveat. The missing explanation of mesh_artifact_id/filename and the unexplained 'receiving solid' reference keep it from being fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries most of the semantic burden and does well for CSV format, units, coordinate origin, axis/position/tolerance, and zone selection. However, it leaves mesh_artifact_id and filename largely unexplained and mentions a 'receiving solid' that does not appear as a schema parameter, creating a small mapping gap.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: prepare a spatial CHT heatmap from a CSV with defined columns and a verified mesh zone. It distinguishes the operation from generic upload/prepare tools by naming the exact input format, coordinate convention, and output artifact.

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 clear conditions and constraints: use CSV rectangle data with a verified mesh zone, specify plane axis/position/tolerance, and avoid inferring numeric loads from image colors. It also warns to remove replaced sources to avoid double heating. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?