Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
COMSOL MCP Server

COMSOL MCP Server

by Zhangyoupeng1996
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

geometry_add_cylinder

Add a cylinder to a COMSOL geometry by specifying position, radius, and height.

Instructions

Add a cylinder to the geometry.

Args: position: Center of base [x, y, z] in meters radius: Radius in meters (default: 0.5) height: Height in meters (default: 1.0) geometry_name: Geometry sequence name (default: first geometry) component_name: Component name (default: 'comp1') feature_name: Feature name (auto-generated if None) model_name: Model name (default: current model)

Returns: Created cylinder info

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "geometry_add_cylinder"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
positionNo
radiusNo
heightNo
geometry_nameNo
component_nameNocomp1
feature_nameNo
model_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states it adds a cylinder, but does not disclose side effects, whether it modifies existing geometry, what 'add' means in terms of geometry sequences, or the format of return info.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Structured with Args and Returns, brief and to the point. No redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter behavior or return format, making it incomplete for effective tool usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates with parameter descriptions (position, radius, height, etc.). However, lacks details on geometry_name (which geometry?), component_name, and feature_name semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool adds a cylinder to the geometry. The verb 'add' and resource 'cylinder' are specific, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like geometry_add_block or geometry_add_sphere.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like adding other shapes or using geometry_add_feature. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools