ANSYS MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Fluent Mapping

fluent_get_mapping_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the structured mapping history between MCP commands and TUI scripts for ANSYS Fluent, enabling review of past script generation.

Instructions

Return structured MCP-to-TUI mapping history.

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": "fluent_get_mapping_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`tool`	Yes
`error`	No
`message`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that the output is 'structured' history, but it does not disclose details like whether the history persists across sessions or is cleared by reset operations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Return') and the specific resource ('structured MCP-to-TUI mapping history'). Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present, annotations covering safety), the description is fully sufficient. It specifies the domain-specific resource and action, and the output schema will define the exact return structure.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with 100% description coverage. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4; the description correctly provides no parameter documentation as none exist.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'structured MCP-to-TUI mapping history', clearly stating the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related sibling tools like 'fluent_reset_mapper', relying on the verb to imply it is the query counterpart.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does; there is no mention of complementary tools such as 'fluent_reset_mapper' or typical scenarios for consulting mapping history.

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