Lists the 12 supported simulation domains and describes what each one simulates, helping you choose the right physics or chemistry simulation for your project.
List the 12 simulation domains Anvil supports and what each one simulates.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the core behavior: the tool is read-only ('List') and states exactly what is returned (the 12 domains plus what each simulates). For a zero-parameter catalog tool there are no side effects, auth requirements, or pagination behaviors left undisclosed.
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 every word earning its place. The verb is front-loaded, the specific count '12' adds precision without bloat, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation content.
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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description is essentially complete: it states the action, the scope, and the return content. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description's explicit statement of what will be returned.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to document. The schema asserts an empty object (additionalProperties: false) and the description adds the only other semantic worth knowing: the nature of the returned data.
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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('the 12 simulation domains Anvil supports'), and the content of the result ('what each one simulates'). The count '12' adds precision, and the informational nature clearly separates it from the action-oriented siblings (forge, solve, export).
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery/catalog tool to call when it needs to know which domains exist before running a simulation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as anvil.solve for the actual computation, so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.