MIDAS CIVIL NX tools (MIDAS IT Europe)

Disperse point loads into patch loads

point_to_patch_apply

Destructive

Converts the model's point loads (or a coordinate table) into dispersed patch loads with the Point to Patch Convertor's engine and writes them as PATCH_ load cases: plate decks get pressures on the plates the patch covers, grillages get UDLs on the members by the lever rule, total force conserved; units converted to the model's. The writer snapshots every row it touches, writes, and reads every item back with a force-equilibrium check. Previews unless apply: true.

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": {
      "dispersal": "<dispersal>"
    },
    "name": "point_to_patch_apply"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No		AUTO
`rail`	No
`apply`	No
`active`	No	Elements the patches may load: { groups: [names], useZ, zMin, zMax }.
`output`	No
`source`	No	mode MODEL (default: nodal and beam concentrated loads; lcNames to pick cases, owners, minMagnitude) or MANUAL (manualText: one load per line 'X, Y, P[, Z]' in kN and m; manualCase names the case).
`direction`	No		GZ
`dispersal`	Yes
`rotationDeg`	No	Traffic direction from global +X, °.
`conserveForce`	No
`acceptBlockers`	No	Accept OVERRIDABLE blockers (the plugin's "Write anyway") — only with the user's agreement.
`confirmPlanHash`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it snapshots every touched row, reads items back with a force-equilibrium check, conserves total force, converts units, and previews by default. That is exactly the kind of write-safety and verification detail an agent needs for a destructive apply tool.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the conversion-and-write purpose, with no filler. The first sentence is long and packs multiple clauses, but every clause carries real information for a 12-parameter tool.

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 destructive, 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavior: what it writes, preview-by-default, force conservation, unit handling, and read-back verification. It leaves gaps around undo routing, the confirmPlanHash workflow, and the REPLACE/ADD consequences, which are important for an apply tool but partially addressed in the 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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must carry more weight. It clarifies the source modes ('model's point loads (or a coordinate table)'), the apply/preview semantics, unit conversion, and the plate-vs-grillage behavior, but it says nothing about rail, active, output mode/tag, direction, rotationDeg, conserveForce, acceptBlockers, or confirmPlanHash.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: converts point loads into dispersed patch loads and writes PATCH_<case> cases, with concrete mechanics for plate decks and grillages. It implies the apply-vs-preview distinction from its siblings, but never names point_to_patch_dispersal or point_to_patch_undo, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

The closing 'Previews unless apply: true' tells the agent how to commit, which is useful implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to use this instead of point_to_patch_dispersal (presumably the preview/calculation-only sibling) or point_to_patch_undo, leaving the main routing decision to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All MIDAS CIVIL NX tools (MIDAS IT Europe) 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?