ANSYS MCP Server

by Bettertoo2

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Solve Mechanical

mechanical_solve

Solves the active ANSYS Mechanical model, executing the simulation to generate results.

Instructions

Solve the active Mechanical model.

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": "mechanical_solve"
  }
}

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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not explain side effects (e.g., overwriting previous results), potential long-running computation, or requirements for a valid active model. No additional transparency beyond the verb itself.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded and without any wasted words. It is slightly more specific than the title by adding 'active,' but it does not enrich the description beyond that.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the surrounding workflow (tools for meshing, applying loads, getting results), the description is too sparse. It does not mention that solving is typically a prerequisite to retrieving results, nor does it indicate that solving may be time-consuming or require a properly configured model. Output schema exists, but that does not cover usage context.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is effectively 100%, so the description has no parameter details to add. The phrase 'active Mechanical model' implies reliance on session state, which is useful context, though minimal.

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 'Solve' with the resource 'active Mechanical model,' clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings that launch, import, or retrieve results. It unambiguously identifies the tool's core function.

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 prerequisites like meshing or applying loads before solving, or using mechanical_get_result after solving. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions.

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