ANSYS MCP Server

by Bettertoo2

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Create Geometry Design

geometry_create_design

Create a new geometry design with a custom name and select it for use in ANSYS simulations.

Instructions

Create and select a new Geometry design.

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": "geometry_create_design"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No		Design

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the behavior that the new design is 'selected,' implying it becomes the active design. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether existing unsaved designs are affected) or any session requirements. This is adequate but not rich beyond 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant detail.

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 is simple (one optional parameter, output schema present) and the description covers the core function. However, it omits context about preconditions, behavior of the selection, or uniqueness constraints. Given the simplicity, this is a minimal viable description with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema defines one parameter 'name' with no description (0% schema coverage), and the tool description does not mention it at all. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it fails to explain what 'name' is for or how it is used.

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 clear action verbs 'Create' and 'select' with a specific resource, 'a new Geometry design.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like geometry_create_block, geometry_create_cylinder, and geometry_create_sphere, which target specific shape primitives rather than the design container itself.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., launching an application) or contrast with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and context.

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