Gradient Dynamics: thermal and CFD simulation

Check simulation request

validate_simulation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate the RANS, URANS or CHT input contract without compute. Verify mesh patches/material zones and units first. URANS requires an owned restart artifact.

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>"
    },
    "name": "validate_simulation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`gpu`	No	GPU type: B200 (default) or H100.
`config`	No
`gpu_count`	No	GPUs for the solve (default 1). CHT and Krylov runs use one.
`project_id`	No
`decision_context`	No
`mesh_artifact_id`	Yes
`restart_artifact_id`	No
`convergence_criteria`	No	How to judge this run converged when it finishes; omit for the standard test (every residual at or below 1e-3, none rising).
`mesh_unit_conversion`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the valuable behavioral facts that no compute is performed and that mesh patches, material zones, and units are the checks in question, plus the URANS restart prerequisite; it does not say what a failed validation produces, though an output schema exists to carry that.

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, with the scope-limiting 'without compute' and the ordering constraint 'first' front-loaded. Nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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?

For a validation gate over an extremely large nested contract, the description covers the simulation modes and two preconditions but never characterizes the config payload, how strict validation is, or how this relates to the sibling validators. The existence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3.

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?

The description surfaces two parameter meanings not obvious from the schema: restart_artifact_id must be an *owned* artifact for URANS, and units must be verified (mesh_unit_conversion). It says nothing about config, gpu/gpu_count, project_id, or convergence_criteria, and with only 33% schema description coverage on 9 parameters the description leaves substantial ground uncovered.

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 names a specific verb (validate) and a specific resource (the RANS/URANS/CHT input contract), and 'without compute' tells the agent this is a static check rather than a solve. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling validate_mesh, validate_geometry, or validate_prediction, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Verify mesh patches/material zones and units first' implies this runs before a solve, and 'URANS requires an owned restart artifact' states a real precondition. However, no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given, so the agent has no explicit rule for choosing this over validate_mesh or validate_geometry.

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?