Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
comsol-mcp

comsol-mcp

by Ching-Chiang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_feature

Modify geometry feature properties in a COMSOL model on the server, with optional geometry rebuild after update.

Instructions

Update geometry feature properties 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": {
      "component": "<component>",
      "geometry": "<geometry>",
      "tag": "<tag>",
      "properties_json": "<properties_json>"
    },
    "name": "update_feature"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
componentYes
geometryYes
tagYes
properties_jsonYes
run_geometryNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior; it only says 'update' implying mutation, but omits side effects, atomicity, return value details, or whether existing properties are replaced or merged.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it omits essential information for effective use, making it slightly under-specified.

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?

With 5 undocumented parameters and an unexplained output schema, the description is far from complete; it fails to equip the agent with sufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage and 5 parameters, the description provides no explanation of any parameter (component, geometry, tag, properties_json, run_geometry), leaving the agent without semantic understanding.

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 explicitly states the action ('update') and the resource ('geometry feature properties on the selected server-side model'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_feature or delete_feature.

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 like create_feature or run_feature, nor any prerequisites or conditions for invocation.

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