ANSYS MCP Server

by Bettertoo2

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

List Geometry Bodies

geometry_list_bodies

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all bodies in the active geometry design to identify components for ANSYS simulation setup.

Instructions

List bodies in the active 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_list_bodies"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's role is to add scope. It adds 'active Geometry design', specifying that it operates on the active design rather than a specified design. No contradictions; however, it doesn't disclose return behavior, though output schema is available.

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?

Single sentence, precisely worded, no 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?

Given 0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema, the description sufficiently orients the agent. Minor gap: doesn't specify body type/filtering, but that's likely in output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Input schema has 0 parameters, so description has no param semantics to add. Per rubric, 0-param tools get baseline 4.

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 'List' and identifies the resource 'bodies' within 'active Geometry design', clearly distinguishing it from other geometry tools like create/export/status.

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 phrase 'active Geometry design' provides clear context for when the tool applies (to the current design), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. However, as the only listing tool for geometry bodies, usage is implied.

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