Gradient Dynamics: thermal and CFD simulation

Check geometry request

validate_geometry

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate template parameters or a self-contained declarative design document and requested formats without compute. This is contract validation, not a native geometry/manufacturing assessment. Exactly one of template_id or document is required.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "validate_geometry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`method`	No	Exact STEP by default. For purpose=meshing, auto permits checked faceted STEP for implicit volumes; artifacts record the actual representation.	exact
`outputs`	No
`purpose`	No	Meshing requires explicit volume output_names; heatmaps, boundary patches and display helpers are rejected by the geometry engine.	export
`bounds_m`	No
`document`	No	Self-contained gd.design/v1 feature graph, up to 1 MiB. Use native design catalogue/edit operations to compose it. Mutually exclusive with template_id; assets/external references are not supported. Native validity, manufacturing and exact export are checked by the worker.
`named_stl`	No	Also export each selected document body as a separate named STL, alongside the combined surface, for mesh wall patches.
`parameters`	No
`project_id`	No
`resolution`	No
`template_id`	No	Registered template; mutually exclusive with document
`output_names`	No
`deflection_mm`	No
`workflow_name`	No
`design_brief_artifact_id`	No	Immutable owned design brief used to derive this candidate; retained in job lineage

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that validation is contract-only and involves no compute, which tells the agent this is a fast non-job check rather than a full assessment.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it validates, what it is not, the mutual-exclusion constraint) is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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, and the core template-vs-document branch is covered. But for a 14-parameter, nested-object tool with 43% schema coverage, the description leaves the geometry-defining parameters (bounds, resolution, deflection, method) unexplained.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 14 parameters and only 43% schema description coverage, the description should carry weight but adds none: bounds_m, resolution, deflection_mm, method, named_stl, output_names, workflow_name and design_brief_artifact_id are untouched. The only parameter fact it states (template_id vs document exclusivity) is already documented in both schema fields.

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 names a specific verb and two concrete resources ('validate template parameters or a self-contained declarative design document'), plus what is validated ('requested formats'). The clause 'This is contract validation, not a native geometry/manufacturing assessment' cleanly separates it from the check_geometry / validate_mesh / validate_simulation family without needing to name them.

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?

'Exactly one of template_id or document is required' gives a hard selection rule an agent can act on, and 'without compute' signals the cheap pre-check role versus heavier native checks. It never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when to skip this in favor of one, which keeps it below 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?