Retrieve element type and connectivity for any instance in an Abaqus model to inspect mesh topology and validate part definitions.
List elements in an instance with their type and connectivity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| 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 transparency burden. The verb 'List' signals a read-only operation and the description states the output fields, but it does not disclose any prerequisites, connectivity representation, or whether an active instance/model connection is required.
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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and object, then specifies the relevant output fields. There is no filler, redundancy, or 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?
The tool is low-complexity and has an output schema, so return values do not need to be described in detail. However, with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the role of model_name and any prerequisites for the target instance remain unclear, leaving the definition only minimally complete for correct invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies instance_name via 'in an instance'. The timeout and model_name parameters are unexplained, leaving the agent to rely on their names and defaults without knowing how they affect behavior.
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 ('List'), a clear resource ('elements in an instance'), and states the returned content ('type and connectivity'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_nodes and get_model_info, even though no sibling is explicitly named.
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 choose this tool over alternatives such as list_nodes, get_model_info, or inspect_odb. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context clues beyond the implied 'when you need elements with type/connectivity' scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.