Retrieve a complete model overview—parts, materials, steps, loads, boundary conditions, interactions, jobs, and viewports—to inspect simulation configuration.
Get parts, materials, steps, loads, BCs, interactions, jobs, and viewports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' a list of entity types; it does not state whether the call is read-only, whether it can be expensive on large models, how the timeout parameter affects execution, or whether any state is refreshed or cached.
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 clear sentence with no filler. The verb and the full list of covered components are front-loaded, making the core purpose immediately readable.
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?
While an output schema exists and may document the return shape, the description still lacks usage context and behavioral transparency. It is broad enough to be ambiguous against many sibling tools, and an agent has no guidance on when choosing this tool is appropriate or what side effects/performance implications to expect.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the optional 'timeout' parameter at all. The parameter name alone suggests a duration, but no units, semantics, or guidance are provided, and the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 clearly states a retrieval operation and explicitly enumerates the model components it covers: parts, materials, steps, loads, BCs, interactions, jobs, and viewports. However, it does not distinguish this broad getter from more specialized siblings like get_field_output_summary, get_odb_info, or list_jobs, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that retrieve specific subsets, such as list_materials, list_elements, get_history_output, or get_odb_info. The context is implied at best: an agent would have to infer that get_model_info is the general-purpose option.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.