Skip to main content
Glama
HBPEKING-TKS

COMSOL MCP Server

by HBPEKING-TKS
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to COMSOL MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • COMSOL MCP Server

      wjc9011
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to automate multiphysics simulations in COMSOL Multiphysics, covering model management, geometry building, physics configuration, and results visualization. It supports complex simulation workflows through the MCP protocol and includes integrated knowledge retrieval for documentation and troubleshooting.
      93
      755
      MIT

    • AspenPlus MCP Server

      brack101
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to interact with Aspen Plus process simulations through a standardized MCP interface, supporting simulation control, data access, and flowsheet manipulation.
      34
      MIT

    • comsol-mcp

      Ching-Chiang
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server for visible COMSOL automation that attaches to a running COMSOL Multiphysics Server, enabling shared model state with the Desktop GUI for collaborative modeling.
      18
      12
      MIT

    • pyNastran MCP Server

      Shaoqigit
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server that enables AI agents to interact with Nastran FEA models by reading, writing, and analyzing BDF and OP2 files. It provides tools for mesh quality assessment, geometric analysis, and automated report generation for structural engineering workflows.
      3
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 78 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Tools are organized by domain with descriptive names, but some overlap exists between generic and specific geometry tools (e.g., geometry_add_feature vs geometry_add_block) and between boundary condition configuration tools (physics_boundary_selection, physics_configure_boundary, interactive setup flows). However, descriptions mostly clarify differences.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Names follow a consistent prefix_pattern (comsol_, model_, geometry_, physics_, param_, results_, study_) with verb_noun structure. Minor inconsistencies: modeling_best_practices uses 'modeling_' vs 'model_', pdf_list_modules vs docs_ prefix, and geometry_add_feature uses 'feature' instead of specific type.

    Tool Count2/5

    With 78 tools, the surface is overly broad. Many tools are redundant (e.g., separate geometry_add_block/cylinder/sphere vs generic geometry_add_feature; multiple interactive setup flows duplicate manual setup). Consolidation could reduce count significantly without loss of functionality.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the full COMSOL workflow from connection to results evaluation. Minor gaps include explicit material library management tools, integration operators, and probe creation. However, core modeling tasks are well-supported.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessSyncing

    Resources