Skip to main content
Glama
Meteor-Simulation

BULC MCP

Official

Auto cutcell mesh

auto_cutcell_mesh

Generate a cut-cell multi-mesh for fire simulation from triangulated geometry, refining narrow gaps and curved surfaces while enforcing engine tiling constraints.

Instructions

Build a cut-cell multi-mesh deck from &GEOM triangulated shapes (plus OBSTs). Cells shrink where the fluid gap is narrow (gap / gap_cells), the GEOM surface band always gets the finest cell so the engine keeps its cut-cell wall physics there, sharp curvature gets one level finer, and levels change at most 2:1 between neighbouring blocks. Cell sizes are min_cell x 2^k. If the deck has no GEOM this is identical to auto_multimesh. Over budget it relaxes curvature, buffer, gap_cells, then raises min_cell and reports what it changed; a gapped, overlapping or misaligned deck is refused. Engine constraints (engine multimesh ratio_union_grid): (1) every mesh must use CUBIC cells whose size is the finest cell x 2^k (k in 1,2,4,8,16); (2) every mesh boundary and the union extent must land on a fine-grid index that is a multiple of the LARGEST ratio actually used; (3) meshes must tile the domain with no overlap and no gap; (4) a 1:4 or larger ratio makes the engine print an experimental-feature warning and switches it to per-mesh storage (MM2) plus the composite block-CG v2 pressure solve, both automatically. Verify with list_meshes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_cellYesCoarsest cell size (m), e.g. 0.2. Rounded DOWN to min_cell x 2^k.
min_cellYesFinest cell size (m), e.g. 0.05 — used on the GEOM surface band and in narrow gaps.
gap_cellsNoMinimum cells across a narrow gap (default 4, floor 3).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say the tool is a non-readonly, non-destructive mutation; the description goes far beyond by disclosing the refinement rules, the ordered budget-relaxation behavior (curvature, buffer, gap_cells, then min_cell) with reporting of changes, the refusal conditions for invalid decks, and the automatic MM2 + block-CG v2 switch at a 1:4 ratio. These are exactly the behavioral traits that change how an agent should call and then validate the tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling comparison before moving into mechanics; every sentence carries substantive information and there is no filler. It is dense and long, with the engine-constraint enumeration reading more like reference material than selection guidance, which keeps it just under top marks.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: what it produces, what triggers refusal, how it self-reports budget-driven changes, and how to verify the result via list_meshes. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely and correctly is absent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning the schema does not: that cell size follows gap/gap_cells in narrow gaps, that min_cell is applied to the GEOM surface band, and how the params interact with the 2^k snapping and 2:1 level-change constraint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build a cut-cell multi-mesh deck from GEOM triangulated shapes') and immediately distinguishes itself from its closest sibling by noting that with no GEOM it is identical to auto_multimesh. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear conditions: use it when the deck has GEOM shapes, and the no-GEOM case is explicitly delegated to auto_multimesh. It also names the verification step ('Verify with list_meshes') and states the deck is refused if gapped/overlapping/misaligned. It stops short of covering other mesh siblings (set_meshes, merge_meshes, auto_fit_mesh), so it is clear context rather than exhaustive when/when-not guidance.

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