Assign a named physical volume to volume tags to classify retained fluid cells for simulation and OpenFOAM export.
Classify retained fluid volume cells with a named physical volume.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| physical_id | No | ||
| request_key | Yes | ||
| volume_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, yet it discloses none of the mutation semantics: whether this overwrites prior classifications, what expected_revision guards, whether request_key implies idempotency, or what worker_epoch means. Only a faint indication that it mutates state is conveyed.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than padded, so its brevity is not wasteful.
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?
Although an output schema exists (relieving the description of return-value explanation), this is a 7-parameter state-mutating tool with no annotations and no documented parameters. The description leaves far too much unspecified for an agent to call it safely and 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 7 parameters, and the description documents none of them. Critical inputs like expected_revision, request_key, worker_epoch, and volume_tags are left entirely opaque, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 gives a verb ("Classify") and a resource ("retained fluid volume cells") scoped by "a named physical volume," which is somewhat specific but sits oddly against the tool name physical_volume_set (set vs classify). It does not differentiate from any sibling, and the domain concept is left unexplained.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent is given only a purpose statement with no context for deciding whether this is the right call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.