Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
comsol-mcp

comsol-mcp

by Ching-Chiang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

run_feature

Execute a geometry or mesh sequence on a COMSOL server-side model using collection and tag identifiers.

Instructions

Run a geometry or mesh sequence on the selected server-side model.

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": {
      "collection": "<collection>",
      "tag": "<tag>"
    },
    "name": "run_feature"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
collectionYes
tagYes
componentNocomp1

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'run', lacking details on whether it modifies state, is destructive, requires authentication, or what the output represents. Very limited transparency.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but this comes at the cost of missing critical information. It is not well-structured to front-load key details for an agent.

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 lack of annotations, high parameter count (3), and an output schema that is not described, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It omits return behavior, side effects, and parameter roles.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the three parameters (collection, tag, component). It does not explain what these parameters represent or how they affect execution.

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 states the action 'Run' and the target 'geometry or mesh sequence on the selected server-side model'. It effectively conveys what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_feature or delete_feature, though it could be more explicit about the semantic difference.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for executing a sequence, but there is no explicit context about prerequisites, conditions, or excluded use cases.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools