ANSYS MCP Server

by Bettertoo2

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Export Geometry

geometry_export

Destructive

Export the active design to a specified STEP or IGES file path, with options for format and overwrite control.

Instructions

Export the active design to the exact requested STEP or IGES path.

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": {
      "output_path": "<output_path>"
    },
    "name": "geometry_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`format`	No	step
`overwrite`	No
`output_path`	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

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds the scope ('active design') and precision ('exact requested path'), but it does not mention file overwriting behavior or other side effects beyond what the annotation already indicates.

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, tightly crafted sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and target. No filler or redundant information.

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 relatively simple export tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key parameters. It could mention overwrite behavior or limitations, but the destructiveHint annotation partially covers that gap, making it sufficient for tool selection.

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 does mention the format options (STEP or IGES) and the output path, but it says nothing about the 'overwrite' parameter, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 the specific verb 'Export' and names the resource ('active design') and target format/path ('STEP or IGES path'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like geometry_import_file or geometry_create_design.

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 conveys that this tool is used to export the active design to a file, which is a clear context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but no other sibling tool provides export functionality, so the usage is unambiguous enough.

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