Create a surface from selected edges of an instance for shell or beam models. Specify edge indices to define the surface for simulation setup.
Create a surface from edges of an instance (for shell/beam).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| edge_indices | Yes | ||
| surface_name | Yes | ||
| instance_name | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the basic operation. It does not mention whether existing surfaces are overwritten, what constraints apply to edge_indices, whether the instance must already exist, or what side effects occur in the model environment.
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 concise sentence, front-loads the primary action, and contains no redundant or filler words. It is efficiently structured for quick agent parsing.
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 tool with 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain prerequisites like whether the instance must exist, how edge indices should be obtained, or how this operation relates to the wider surface/shell/beam workflow. The presence of an output schema lessens the need to describe return values, but other operational context is still missing.
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 does not explain individual parameters. It does add some relational meaning by clarifying that edges belong to an instance, but surface_name, model_name, timeout, and the exact semantics of edge_indices remain underspecified.
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 action ('Create a surface'), a clear resource ('from edges of an instance'), and an intended domain ('for shell/beam'). This distinguishes it from more generic surface-creation tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'create_surface'.
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 parenthetical 'for shell/beam' implies the tool is intended for shell/beam model creation, giving some usage context. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with alternatives such as 'create_surface' or 'create_set_by_edges'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.