Name exterior surfaces and assign OpenFOAM mesh patch types to define boundary patches for CFD meshes.
Name exterior surfaces and assign their OpenFOAM mesh patch type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| role | No | ||
| mesh_type | No | patch | |
| session_id | Yes | ||
| physical_id | No | ||
| request_key | Yes | ||
| surface_tags | Yes | ||
| worker_epoch | Yes | ||
| expected_revision | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, that the operation is concurrency-guarded (expected_revision, worker_epoch) or idempotent (request_key), or what happens on a revision conflict. For a 9-parameter write tool this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler and a front-loaded action, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise – the brevity comes at the cost of the parameter and behavioral detail an agent needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with 9 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and hidden concurrency semantics, the one-line description leaves out information the agent needs to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters. The description only maps loosely to three of them (name, surface_tags via “surfaces”, mesh_type via “patch type”) and says nothing about role, physical_id, session_id, expected_revision, request_key, or worker_epoch, which are the non-obvious concurrency and identity fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb pair (“Name”, “assign”) and a concrete resource (exterior surfaces / OpenFOAM mesh patch type), so an agent can tell it apart from inspection or validation siblings like mesh_inspect or patch_validate. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting with those siblings, which keeps it off a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus patch_validate, mesh_configure, or physical_volume_set, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. an active session, a prior mesh). The only implicit context is that surfaces must already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.