ANSYS MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Load Fluent UDF

fluent_load_udf

Compile or interpret an existing Fluent UDF source file for use in ANSYS Fluent simulations, ensuring your custom functions are ready to run.

Instructions

Compile or interpret an existing Fluent UDF source file.

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": {
      "source_file": "<source_file>"
    },
    "name": "fluent_load_udf"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`compile`	No
`source_file`	Yes

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

All annotations are set to false, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two modes (compile vs. interpret) but omits significant behavioral details: prerequisites (e.g., valid C source), side effects (e.g., generated artifacts), and what loading actually accomplishes in the Fluent environment.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and specifies the resource immediately.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the core action. However, it falls short on usage guidance and behavioral context, especially given the presence of closely related Fluent UDF tools. It is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains the compile flag via 'compile or interpret' and clarifies that source_file should reference an existing file. However, it lacks details on file types, path conventions, or the default behavior when compile is false.

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 uses a specific verb phrase ('Compile or interpret') and names the resource ('existing Fluent UDF source file'), which clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like fluent_hook_udf or fluent_list_udfs.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (for existing UDF source files) and what it does (compile or interpret), but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or specify when not to use it. This gives clear context without exclusions.

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