Set up a linear elastic material in an Abaqus model by inputting Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, and optional density for simulation.
Create a linear elastic material in Abaqus.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| density | No | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| poisson_ratio | Yes | ||
| youngs_modulus | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states that a material is created; it does not disclose side effects such as adding to the current model, overwriting an existing material of the same name, or requiring an active Abaqus model/connection.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently captures the action and domain without unnecessary detail.
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?
Even with an output schema present, the description is too thin for a 6-parameter creation tool with no annotations. It omits usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral side effects, leaving too much for the agent to infer.
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% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain units, positivity constraints, the role of the optional density/timeout parameters, or how model_name influences the operation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('linear elastic material') in the Abaqus domain. This clearly differentiates it from sibling material tools such as create_hyperelastic_material and create_viscoelastic_material.
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?
The description gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over related material creation tools, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.