ANSYS MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Launch Geometry

geometry_launch

Launch a geometry service for Discovery or SpaceClaim, specifying mode, version, and timeout to prepare geometry for simulation workflows.

Instructions

Launch a Geometry service for Discovery or SpaceClaim.

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_launch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mode`	No	discovery
`replace`	No
`timeout`	No
`version`	No

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

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds only that it launches a 'service', implying a persistent background process, but doesn't disclose side effects, license requirements, whether it blocks until ready, or the open-world implications suggested by openWorldHint=true.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It is concise but at the cost of critical information. A bit more detail would be earned.

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

Completeness1/5

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

This is a launch tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, yet the description gives no context about what happens after launch, how to reference the service, or how it fits into the geometry workflow. Given the sibling tools, the agent is left guessing about sequencing.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries no parameter information. While the schema provides names, types, defaults, and an enum for 'mode', it doesn't explain the meaning of 'replace' or 'timeout' in the launch context, and the description does nothing to clarify.

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 identifies the action (launch) and resource (Geometry service), and names the two supported modes (Discovery or SpaceClaim). This distinguishes it from sibling launch tools like mechanical_launch and fluent_launch. However, it doesn't explain what 'launch' entails or that it starts a persistent service.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing an import file, or that geometry_launch should be called before geometry_create_* or geometry_list_bodies. There is no explicit statement about when not to use it.

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