ANSYS MCP Server

by Bettertoo2

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Read Fluent Mesh

fluent_read_mesh

Load an existing Fluent mesh file into ANSYS for simulation preprocessing by specifying its file path.

Instructions

Read an existing Fluent mesh 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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "fluent_read_mesh"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes	Absolute or working-directory-relative file path

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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), and the description adds no behavioral disclosure about session state mutation, error handling, or file requirements. The word 'Read' may imply safe read-only, but readOnlyHint=false contradicts that implication, creating ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 one compact sentence with no filler, earning high marks for efficiency. It is appropriately front-loaded with verb and resource.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks any context about session state, file validity, or relationship to fluent_read_case. Given the sibling context, more contextual detail would be helpful.

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 input schema fully describes the file_path parameter with 100% coverage, and the description offers no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Thus the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb 'read' and the resource 'Fluent mesh file', making the primary function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool fluent_read_case, though the resource type provides implicit distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fluent_read_case, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the action without context.

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