Assign a given element type, such as C3D8R, to a selected part in an Abaqus model, enabling control over mesh formulation for accurate simulation.
Set the element type for a part.
Args: elem_type: e.g., "C3D8R", "C3D8", "C3D10", "CPS4R", "CPE4R", "S4R", "B31"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | ||
| elem_type | No | C3D8R | |
| part_name | Yes | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 |
| 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 provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It only says 'Set the element type for a part' without disclosing side effects, whether an existing mesh is affected, whether the part must already exist, or what validation errors may occur. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating tool.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a helpful example list for elem_type. It is not verbose, but the 'Args:' block only documents one of four parameters, which is slightly misleading structurally.
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 that mutates part state with no annotations, output schema details are not shown, and schema coverage is 0%, the description is too thin. It lacks usage conditions, behavioral side effects, and guidance on how this relates to the meshing workflow. An agent would need to infer most operational context.
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. It provides useful example values for elem_type ('C3D8R', 'C3D8', etc.), which adds real meaning. However, it ignores part_name, model_name, and timeout, though those are largely inferable from their names and schema defaults.
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 and resource: 'Set the element type for a part.' This distinguishes it from mesh- or seed-related siblings like set_mesh_control and seed_part. It doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the action is clear enough.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as seed_part, set_mesh_control, or generate_mesh. The example element types imply it is for assigning an Abaqus element type, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.